By tribalism, I mean that people have an intuition for whether the deplatforming is promoted by, or used against, people who they identify with, and that guides their views on whether deplatforming is appropriate. For example, people in one tribe have recently been identifying with people who got deplatformed for hate speech or incitement and they believe these efforts are driven by the repressive values of another tribe. Others read the story about porn and think about how Utah legislators are part of some other tribe, and that leads that to make some argument from free expression (I think the highest rated comment here about “small government” is a good example).

You could make an argument that’s more tribe-independent like this: “limiting freedom of expression by deplatforming is appropriate, but only to prevent a legitimate harm”. Then the two tribes would try to justify their side by debating about which harms are legitimate, which at least has a chance of being data-driven.

People who say that deplatforming is never or always appropriate get points for consistency. But I suspect that their comments will mostly be upvoted on stories where the principle aligns with the more prevalent tribe.