>Nothing in this article mentions passing a law [...] For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous. I think y

>Nothing in this article mentions passing a law [...] For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous. I think you've inadvertently overlooked how the 3 parent replies above you were discussing hypotheticals. In other words, each reply tried to elaborate what the alternate universes of free/censored speech might look like: - evrydayhustling's hypothetical: "What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? [...]" - im3w1l's hypothetical: "What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform [...]" - amputect's hypothetical: "What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force [...]" Commenters can bring up hypothetical laws or attempt to predict hypothetical outcomes even though the article itself doesn't mention creating a new law. (It's also possible that the middle reply in the chain of hypotheticals by im3w1l was misinterpreted as a call for a government law even though he doesn't explicitly state it. Sometimes people read between the lines and misconstrue the commenter's intent. It does seem like im3w1l's statement of "These people are not arguing in good faith" is implying that the mechanisms of the free market and free association wouldn't work for marginalized ideas. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that the alternate universe he's thinking of that would work would be a government law that prevents de-platforming.)