It's interesting, the usual go-to argument of the censorship apologists is to claim that they're not actually advocating for censorship because the hopeless gigantic corporations they so nobly defend are private actors and thus have the right to ban whatever they want.
Then this article (posted long before recent events made the discussion a hot topic) presents how we need a serious alternative to these giant platforms and build protocols to replace them... And those same people immediately start saying that no, they in fact do want to forbid whoever they choose from saying/publishing anything anywhere.
Mind you, not that "Facebook/Twitter/Google/etc are private companies and can allow anything they want and that's not censorship" wasn't always a motte-and-bailey, but it's sad to see it on display so transparently.
At least most of them are downvoted, if nothing else.
Then this article (posted long before recent events made the discussion a hot topic) presents how we need a serious alternative to these giant platforms and build protocols to replace them... And those same people immediately start saying that no, they in fact do want to forbid whoever they choose from saying/publishing anything anywhere.
Mind you, not that "Facebook/Twitter/Google/etc are private companies and can allow anything they want and that's not censorship" wasn't always a motte-and-bailey, but it's sad to see it on display so transparently.
At least most of them are downvoted, if nothing else.