I have some nitpicks:

Originally Posted by Sini
1. You are trying to reframe the argument to be more favorable for your position. "How to do X" is related but different question from "Should X be done".


Well, take the larger picture here. You're arguing that your examples shouldn't be "censored" and providing this as a necessary step towards your remedy. If this step can't happen, then you're not really offering a remedy, just an unrealistic complaint.

Originally Posted by Sini
2. I think political affiliation as a protected status would be sufficient. If Nazi want such protection they could form a party and all register as card-carrying members. I disagree with your "requirement to maintain protection", as it can be easily abused to negate such protection. Let me demonstrate: democrats advocate for reproductive rights, this discriminates against religions that believe it is forbidden.


Your example is flawed, democrats advocate for individual reproductive rights, which isn't equivalent to advocating for abolition of restrictions voluntarily adopted by religious individuals.

---

Should social media be regulated as public accommodation?

First, clear up this hypocrisy for me:

Originally Posted by You
Participating in social media is toxic, rots your brain, nothing on there means anything; therefore rational people like me should avoid it at all costs

Originally Posted by Also you
Participation in social media is a requirement for the exercise of free speech in modern society, to such an extent that guarantees for participation should be written as law

Quote
Sweating guy trying to decide which button to press

[Linked Image]