The actual principle which corporations apply is, "We should censor whoever it makes the most money to censor." Starting from the assumption that companies are

The actual principle which corporations apply is, "We should censor whoever it makes the most money to censor." Starting from the assumption that companies are operating on ethics at all means we're wrong right from the beginning. Hypothetically there exists an ethical way to censor, but where that falls apart is when you give that decision to ethics-blind corporations. You should check out Schelling Fences on Slippery Slopes[1], particularly the section "Coalitions of Resistance". There's also a separate disagreement which I have here, which is whether silencing people is actually an effective way to create change. It takes enormous resources even for governments to enforce it effectively, as we've seen with Nazis and the USSR in the past, and with China now. With bigots, censorship on other platforms has driven them together into some real cesspool platforms such as Voat[2]. I know for myself, having grown up in a homophobic environment, that the only thing that changed my mind about gay people was meeting and talking to gay people--a strategy which was explicitly executed by Harvey Milk in his coming out campaigns. Censoring bigots does the opposite: it drives bigots into echo chambers where they will only ever converse with other bigots who reinforce their views. In short: if you're censoring bigots, you aren't addressing bigotry, you're just sweeping it under the rug so you don't have to see it. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-fences-on-slippery-slopes https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-... [2] https://voat.co https://voat.co