The idea that what you say has consequences is a long held aspect of society.

Of course everyone will be judged by those around them based on how they act.

The question is how far should we go in attacking, stigmatizing, humiliating, or financially damaging those around us for voicing an idea that perhaps we don’t agree with?

I totally agree that it’s OK to hold people accountable. Answering speech you disagree with by voicing your disagreement and making the best counter-argument you can make. If someone says something that’s beyond the pale / beyond debate and just shameful, you can express your distaste and ask for an apology. Maybe someone says something you think is wrong and you take the time to see if you can teach them something new.

Every disagreement has two people who both think the other person is wrong. But it’s a mob mentality that the most organized or radicalized side should be able to inflict the most pain on the “others”.

There will obviously be the very exceptional case where an irredeemable idea meets an unrelenting bigot and perhaps such people must be ostracized for it. I’ve been fortunate enough to perhaps never have met such a person in my life.

I think that free speech "side" needs to develop theories that take reality of these debates into account. Because, in general, where you aim is where is better to be. But, the argument that frames these conflict as abstract rational debates without consequences where making best case for your argument is the way to go is out of sync with reality.

These discussions are not about arguments nor counter-argument. They are a lot about manipulating, appealing emotions, emasculating opposing arguments, about making up lies and spreading them as much as possible. They are about mixing truth with lies in as sleazy way as possible and so on.

I am not saying this should be disallowed, but this arena is not about arguments and free speech argument that assumes so is hollow.

They are not detached disagreements either, because a lot of it is intentional attempt to make people act and think certain way. The goal is to make people feel afraid and under threat for example. And then I am personally getting more hostile treatment, because they read something on the internet. (And this effect did actually happen with some of my collegues. It was not big like harrasement hostile bad, definitely not, but it was noticeable and changed things).

I have encountered people who I have needed to shun and remove from my life. Google is free to shun people, indeed due to their size and reach they are much more likely to encounter people who must be shunned then you or me.

I agree that Google is free to do it. I don't think what Google has done is illegal. But I don't like that they're doing it, and I don't think society should encourage them to do it.

For example, I'm more likely to vote for a politician who would consider increased regulatory scrutiny for large companies that use their dominant market position to suppress political speech. Someone else might feel differently, but I would likewise be against large companies using their dominant market position to silence that person or outlets which sympathize with that person's viewpoint as well.

What one is free to do, and what is right to do, are two entirely different matters.