There was an immediately-flagkilled comment (on a post about free speech, lol) which I agree with and want to reply to: > Funny, since on HN I keep seeing comm

There was an immediately-flagkilled comment (on a post about free speech, lol) which I agree with and want to reply to: > Funny, since on HN I keep seeing comments about how the are not neutral and only fight for left-wing causes. I literally had this argument last week when I said that the only times people advocate "free speech" in practice are when they're advocating the freedom to advocate and enact fascism. Someone was like "but what about the ACLU???" Fun fact: The Nazis never ended up marching in Skokie, despite the court case. Their goal wasn't to make their views known (their views were known). Their goal was to harass small municipalities with significant Jewish populations, and the ACLU said, "Sure, we'll help." I still don't think the ACLU is a fascist organization, to be clear, but on the free speech front they've done way more advocacy for fascism (which will crush free speech if permitted to take power) than literally anything else. But in this case - where it's about a private company, so there isn't even a legal right, and when there's a serious proposal on the table to harm free speech by gutting Section 230 to preserve people's "right" to force a private entity, whether Twitter or a tiny phpBB, to carry their speech - I'm starting to worry.