Vorausen wrote:Senkaku wrote:Why do you think there should be such a distinction? If speech is so abhorrent that private citizens don't want to associate with it or further its spread in their own lives, why shouldn't they come together as a self-governing collective to agree on banning its public expression? Why would it be "more" wrong for the state to join in the fun? Again: this is something plenty of Western democracies already do without being much worse for wear.
"Cancel culture" and banning someone off a social media site are two different things. Like I said Private, they own the website they make the rules. *
(*of course obvious things apply)
Why can't we ban something that harasses basically everyone not white?