> I find this argument similar to: regulating the > construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. You're calling it out as a slippery slope argumen

> I find this argument similar to: regulating the > construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. You're calling it out as a slippery slope argument [1], which is fair enough - except there is already evidence to suggest that users kicked off of these platforms migrate to Minds (Twitter alternative), Gab (Facebook alternative) and BitChute (Youtube alternative). The BBC article for example has almost 70 comments on Dissenter [2]. Removing a persons ability to comment only hides the problem, you can't stop them thinking a given way and you're less likely to change their mind if you cut off dialogue with them entirely. > The issue isn't really about silencing people, but > removing their access to a mainstream audience. You're removing their access to a mainstream audience by silencing them. In this case they are the same. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope [2] https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftechnology-47826946 https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3...