I'm on FF, with uMatrix blocking all non-1st-party cookies'n'scripts, and non-whitelisted cookies deleting.

Similar on mobile. My mileage is billboard-free.

The Right to Free Speech of course has limits. We limit all kinds of speech, but first we limit it with social pressure.

I have been paying a bit of attention. Help me out. GoDaddy was providing which service for them, and why can't they just hop on CrisisHost or something?

Europeans often smell themselves when it comes to the abstract idea of Liberty; in the concrete I prefer America's.

Here though, we part company. Why is it Verizon's business that I have requested HTTP from Gab.com? Verizon and I have a contract to fulfill my HTTP requests for a certain charge per month. They have no business with Gab.com that I care about when making an HTTP request, and throttling my request makes the business relationship with Verizon much less worthwhile.

GoDaddy is not involved in Net Neutrality. I don't have a contract with GoDaddy to deliver HTTP to me.

Here, we are in complete agreement. People who are crying for Gab's deplatforming are ignorant, short-sighted, slope-slippers. If you believe in free speech only for some, you don't believe in it at all.

That being said, you don't have to enable anyone else's speech. That is freedom, as well.

Heh.

Still, this is market forces saying that something is toxic. I don't for a second believe that there won't be a successor to Gab soon.

In fact, I'm looking forward to trolling nazis on it very soon.

This is a feature, not a bug. If you want to talk to people, you have to go where the people are.

Yes, they have been persecuted in the commercial space, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about: that content wouldn't even have a chance of being hosted in Germany.

What I was saying is that a private entity which does not support Gab does not support the principles of free speech. That is, as you say, having it both ways.

However, preventing a private entity from terminating business arrangements or not entering into them does not strike me as a remedy. The current cycle of shaming and naming makes certain opinions completely, commercially-speaking, toxic. This is freedom, too.

You've conflated the platforms which will kick you off with the entire universe of broadcast, the internet, and publishing.

Perhaps I was too generous before.

No, you can do what everyone else who wants to be heard does: buy airtime/webtime/magazine-space.

And in North Korea, you fucking moron, you'll be SHOT for attempting to buy that airtime. Not in Freemerica.

"you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland", said no one, ever, to no one in particular.

Yeah, I'm pretty uncomfortable with them being deplatformed, too. I don't think that you can on the one hand say you support the principles of free expression and on the other say "Oh, well, that makes me uncomfortable."

On the other hand, no one has to pay for the bits which make up your speech, and the government isn't involved, so I'm not sure this is the exact hill on which to die.

The trick is recognizing the cause and what to do about it. Mostly-one-way-tubes is what caused that precondition. The average internet subscriber's *right-to-publish* must be taken back from ISPs.

You realize, of course, no one is forced to use closed protocols like Facebook.

Yes, I knew they're referring to the new impacts. How long?