Different platforms have different baseline moderation policies, and in some cases that remains the differentiator in the platform itself (e.g. Parler). I dont think acting within the values of another site is a good excuse to not get banned by the one a community currently occupies

Discord is absolutely in their right to do as it may please with the platform. My point is more to the effect of the ethos of WSB is not a place for civil discourse and expecting otherwise is foolish. The only reason it exists on reddit is heavy moderation, and that's/was going to be impossible on Discord.

Hmm, Al Gore must be smiling. It’s 40 years late, but his dream is almost come true.

Not exactly sure what you're getting at.

Here is my position, as this seems to be increasingly foreign for many people I talk with. A private entity (person or enterprise) should be able to manage their servers without outside interference. If I open up a server privately, I should have the right to moderate it, or not, however I see fit. 4chan still exists (as of now), and IMO, should not be interfered with. If somebody wants to create an LDS chatroom where swearing and drinking coffee lands you a ban, more power to you. We should be allowed to freely associate as we see fit, and those who own the space can decide the rules for discourse.

Now, am I saying corporate interests would never actively coordinate with government or other powerful interests to maintain a certain narrative or obtain power, absolutely not. That is a totally different discussion, and probably relies on a bottom up approach. The plebs aren't going to change Twitter's TOS or the programming on FOX, and we shouldn't expect to either. The corporate media sphere is carefully curated for whatever drives their interests. That maybe engagement, supporting commercial or policy positions beneficial to immediate or patron interests, or just old fashioned Operation Mockingbird interference. It's best if we ditch it altogether.