I think that’s a fair point for social media services.

However, again, given operation Chokepoint, and the NY AGs attempts to go after banks and insurance companies working with the NRA, it think it’s perfectly fair in the case of anything remotely related to financial services to presume government coercion absent explicit evidence to the contrary.

Banking and financial services are heavily regulated, and there are simply too many opportunities for regulators to meddle quietly outside the public eye.

That is a perfectly fair point. In fact I and others have documented a large number of instances in which persons wielding government power have arm-twisted private actors into denying platforms.

Even so, it is important to respond to the facts and circumstances of each case rather than jumping over to “It’s all coerced and should be dealt with accordingly.” To use the analogy of older technologies, while it is outrageous for a government functionary to call a bookstore or newsstand and get them to take a controversial publication off the shelf, it is also outrageous to force them to keep such a publication on the shelf if they genuinely and on their own do not wish to carry it.

I do not laugh off, but actively oppose, proposals to forbid Twitter, PayPal, etc. to refuse to deal with customers they dislike, including on grounds of not wanting to be part of propagating hateful messaging. This, even though I sharply disagree with many decisions both services have made in cutting off customers and have vocally criticized them for doing so.

I guess I am one of the “so-called libertarians” jdgalt believes are to be discredited.

This movement is dangerous and evil, and needs to be resisted until it can be outlawed, especially when done by (effective) monopoly services such as banks and credit card companies.

Any so-called libertarian who laughs off this threat as if it were the free choice of participants in a true free market will only discredit himself even as he helps in his own victimization.