This argument always reminds me of the evergreen dril tweet: https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en https://twitter.com/dril/status/47326580

This argument always reminds me of the evergreen dril tweet: https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en (cw: profanity). You've rhetorically zoomed out so far that only the most abstract description of the category of the action is up for discussion. But this is begging the question - there's no reason that this must be the case. This rhetorical trick of categorizing all of these as "private companies denying service," is the same one used by those who opposed anti-discrimination laws. Should an ice-cream store be able to kick out a person pissing on the floor? Should they be able to kick out a black person for being black? In each case, it's simply "a private company doing whatever they want." But, obviously, these two cases are not the same. Personally, I think it's quite a different thing to kick people who incite violence off your social media platform than it is to ban sex-workers from using you as a payment processor. And, because they are different actions, with different intent and effects, it is, of course, possible to think "Hey, it's good that [x] is happening, but bad that [y] is happening."