I did read what you wrote. You are not arguing for the right to free speech, you are arguing for a right to a platform (yet referring to such as an appeal to free speech).
And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.
Again, I ask what good is a right if one can not reasonably exercise it?
I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.
No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot.
Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.
Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive.
Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary.
Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right to internet exist if the internet didn't exist? This is opposed to people's need to communicate (free speech), their need for a safe place to sleep, or to satiate their hunger and nutritional needs. All of these problems exist by nature of us being human, and are inescapable in life by definition. Thus the rights, that we have today to protect people from succumbing to painful and undignified suffering when these needs aren't met, are justified. The same cannot be said of a recent technological invention. No one needs the internet to live.
So, we have a starting point. Now, would you then agree that the primary purpose of a networked group of computers is the exchange of information?
If you will agree to that, will you also agree that communication is information?
If you will agree to that, and to the general concept of the freedom of expression, as an ideal to aspire to and not just a government restriction, would you then agree that even the shittiest people on the planet should be allowed some method for self expression on said connected network of computers in a reasonable manner, so long as said expression is lawful and up until due process, in accordance with their local jurisdiction, takes away said rights?
In other words, they deserve the right to say their vile crap.
Before you say no they don't, I'd like to point out that not that king ago, and in some parts of this world, is censored speech. I'd like to point out that I absolutely guarantee there are those who would silence even you. They find your views absolutely reprehensible. You offend the very fiber of their being. They hate everything you stand for.
Be careful which rights you cede, for you will not always be the decider. Pendulums swing and the repercussions are mighty.
I've traveled, a lot. I've been in combat, war zones, in the midst of refugees, in camps, and in ruins. I've seen what happens when people dehumanize others. I've seen what happens when we lose empathy.
I'm not trying to change your mind. It's the Internet. Nobody ever changes their mind. I am trying to demonstrate a good accounting. Someone has to speak for the rights of all humans. Someone has to have empathy for even the worst among us.
Don't get me wrong. Some folks need killing. But, due process matters, as does empathy, dignity, and honor. Meh... It is just what it is. Things go to hell without it.
As for your point, you don't need a right to bear arms to survive. You don't need a right to speech to survive. You don't need a right to your property, your right to avoid self incrimination, etc... You need those to have liberty.
Edit: email in profile, if you want. I'm quite happy to have rational discourse.
So if you agree that the providers of service on the internet are under no obligation to provide a soapbox for everyone who signs up, what do you recommend that that look like should one be established?
A pretty common sentiment is that you neuter trolls when you remove any chance for anonymity, i.e., you put their reputation on the line. I would be happy to belong to a "free speech-oriented zone" on the internet that required real-life verification. Then people wouldn't be so quick to spread virulent, violent ideologies in such a space. IMO this provides a secondary effect, namely that people would stop taking so seriously those areas where anonymity is provided. Perhaps the interactions can be strongly weighted toward local ones, to provide more accountability. Such a platform would need to be free from any sort of money transactions, especially Facebook's current business model.
Furthermore, empathy has nothing to do with advocacy. The ingredient missing when comparing refugees with white nationalists is that of the fundamental power imbalance. One is certainly free to express empathy for both, but tuning the narrative to equivocate people who are being exterminated with their exterminators is pretty dishonest. Your moral obligation (imo) when presented with people who are being systematically denied requirements for life is to spread and advocate for their survival. Notice that white nationalists are only being challenged on the lines of "liberty" whereas refugees are being challenged on the lines of "life." The DoI says it best, and puts them in a specific order not haphazardly, but deliberately: life comes first (and thus the removal of threats to it), then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness.
Right now, they have Voat. But, the recent trend has been more and more aggressive censorship - including from sites that used to tolerate the truly deplorable.
It is a worrying trend. Homosexuality was once deplorable. Transfolk were once deplorable. Atheism was once deplorable. In some parts of the world, they still are. To some people, in your own country, they still are.
Cheer on.
I am not afraid of the deplorable on Voat. You know what does scare me? Children with access to real military weapons, not their daddy's AR. A keyboard warrior with bad grammar and a Nazi flag is a pretty horrible person. I've seen worse.
You're not scared. That's fine. For all I know, you have no reason to be scared of white nationalists, because to them, you're not the threat. That doesn't make it any safer for a large portion of the United States or other Western countries where these sentiments are popping back up.
We know Africa and South America and Southeast Asia are still relatively dangerous. That doesn't excuse the sentiments that are building here in the US whatsoever. It actually doesn't factor at all into this discussion because they are totally off the radar for people who should be provided the liberty of living without constant breathing down their neck and "go home" and "jews will not replace us." Where does the liberty from harassment and execution factor into your liberty ethics?
The issue is also not what happens right this moment, but what happens in 10 years' time when people have been surrounding themselves and their family and friends with this rhetoric. The history of the Nazi party following the fall of the Weimar republic doesn't span months, it spans a decade or more. What reason is there to deny some people the "right" to demonize and alienate minorities solely on the basis of inaccurate judgments when things could get a lot worse down the road? The slippery slope, after all, has two faces. We can just as easily say that granting some liberties now causes a lot of hurt down the road as removing them.
I'm not white. I'm quite distinctly not white. They would harm me, if they had the courage and means.
You would deprive them of their liberties without due process and you would do so out of fear. You justify it and call it rational.
That is how I see you. That is what I see when I read what you write.
I don't expect to change your views. I will point out that that sort of thinking is how the US ended up with things like the PATRIOT Act and FISA courts. Fearful people are not rational people, they are rationalizing people.
In ten years, do you want to live in some authoritarian society where every thought and expression must be approved by the public? Where no dangerous thought must be expressed? Where those declared deplorable must be silenced and shunned? Where there exist an oppressed class for their very thoughts, without acting on them?
I do not. I am not afraid. I am more afraid of ceding my liberties and my empathy. I am more afraid of a day when you are not allowed to speak out against Nazis.
And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.