I think this is shaky ground. Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality (though I do not). White supremacists, religious people etc think their beliefs reflect objective reality, which is clearly not something they can choose. I think making "you chose this" a valid reason to censor/attack/etc. something opens the door to some pretty dangerous things, since it's not difficult to accuse things of being a choice that aren't.

What about communists, anarchists, marxists, mormons, people who believe there are genetically based cognitive differences based on sex/race. What about people who are against abortion, against weed legalization, what about people who consider cops to be a civilian death squad used by the rich to oppress the poor. What about people who think the US Army is an occupation force in every place but America. Is OK to discriminate some of them? All of them? None? Are you going to manage the API so the apps can be built to see who is worthy or not?

People choose their religion, too.

> People choose their ideology

How do you figure that works? Do we wake up, fully equipped with a developed mind but zero preferences and experiences and then ponder which of the available ideologies we would like to subscribe to?

Yes naturally people of color, and LGBT folk can't ascribe to an ideology. Naah .. that's nonsense. They're immune.

Each group will have its own ideologues, its own agenda.

lgbt fanatics aren't much more sane than any other extremists yet they don't have any issues with being on twitter, facebook or reddit. (emphasis on _fanatics_). Widespread propaganda about kids sexualization/abuse and genitalia mutilation on these platform is A-ok and a cause for celebration.

You literally can't express any opinions going against the current flow of ideas without being labelled as hostile (alt-right, nazi, white privileged, whatever the word of the day is, &c.), no matter how valid the point you're making is (even here on HN you can’t have serious discussions about issues like the gender pay gap or immigration). It really isn't a surprise that these loners end up on sketchy websites once they're ridiculed/banned/shut off everywhere else. If you're a man feeling like a girl you'll find a community telling you you should chop off your genitals and ingest a truck load of hormones, if you’re a POC feeling unaccepted they'll tell you it's because of how racist society is [0], if you’re a girl and aren’t successful it’s due to the patriarchy [0], but oh boy if you’re a white man feeling empty inside no one gives a flying fuck about what you have to say.

Anyone thinking these shootings are due to 8chan is a fool, plain and simple, the issues are rooted much more deeply, especially in the US culture, and they've been running for a while. I’d even argue that the root cause of modern white supremacy is very close to the root cause of religious terrorism. But see, no one wants to even consider it through that lens, it's much easier to dismiss it entirely and talk about non-issues ("they're mentally ill", "just an angry loner", "if only he was dating", &c.). Now we can spend days talking about cloudflare, but that's mostly a waste of time, you don't put a bandaid on a broken leg and expects it to heal.

https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-about-Terror

---

“These young people find themselves at a time in their life when they are looking to the future with the hope of engaging in meaningful behavior that will be satisfying and get them ahead. Their objective circumstances including opportunities for advancement are virtually nonexistent; they find some direction for their religious collective identity but the desperately disadvantaged state of their community leaves them feeling marginalized and lost without a clearly defined collective identity”

for the individuals who become active terrorists, the initial attraction is often to the group, or community of believers, rather than to an abstract ideology or to violence” ---

[0] Just to be clear I'm not implying these things don't exists or that they're non-issues.

> I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech.

You know where that phrase came from? It was coined in Schenck v. United States[1], where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr convicted the defendant for publishing pamphlets opposing the draft in the first world war.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

I see your point, but violation of TOS has to be a very clearly defined situation and it is rarely is, at the end it can be ambiguously interpreted to kick anyone if you have the right lawyers, so we are back to step 1.

> I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech.

I would like to point out (not necessarily to parent) that this was an example of speech that was not protected by 1A in a case where a man was prosecuted by the government for trying to tell young Americans that they don't need to join the draft for WW1.

Also important: yelling fire in a crowded theater is entirely protected speech if you don't believe it to be false.