"Corporations shouldn't get the right to decide who does and doesn't stay online"

They already do, and this has been true since pretty much the inception of the internet. What HE decides doesn't matter for this. HE doesn't make law nor legal precedent.

"But we should campaign against that, even if it's already the case! They should lose that right!"

Perhaps! But then don't you think there's better examples to take than fucking *Kiwifarms*? It's not like being refused service is a rare issue among marginalized folks, and curiously the EFF doesn't take *them* as an example. I wonder why.

"But precedent is important!"

What HE does sets no legal precedent. No courts were involved in this entire precedent.

"But I mean *social* precedent, not *legal* precedent!"

We already widely socially accept that services get cut off. Not just obviously malicious things like spam, but also oppressed groups like sex workers. This *shouldn't* be socially acceptable, but it is. If you're worried about 'precedent', we already have it, and KF doesn't change anything about it.

"But if we can't protect the worst people, then it will also harm the oppressed people!"

This is a somewhat absurd line of reasoning that ignores that fascists are always the *last* in line to get hit with consequences, not the first. Once the fascists start getting bothered, that means you're too late and everyone else has already been subject to this shit for a long time. That's how power dynamics work.

"But the EFF are lawyers, it's their job to talk about precedent!"

Then maybe they should shut their mouths about this, when precedent isn't the issue, and the problem isn't their area of expertise. Leave these issues to the people who actually understand how to deal with them.

"But Kiwifarms aren't fascists! They're just a forum, and they don't allow harassment to be organized on it!"

You've bought into fascist propaganda, sorry. Look deeper into their history and kill count. Non-zero kill counts don't just magically happen - and neither does cheering about it after the fact.

"But KF will just move somewhere else!"

This is irrelevant to whether HE wants to provide service to them; but aside from that, the point isn't to stamp out every last trace of KF, it's to make their continued existence difficult enough that it discourages further harassment.

"But the collateral damage! They denied service to an entire provider, not just to KF!"

When there's a nazi at a table and 10 others, there's 11 nazis at the table. Don't knowingly associate with fascists, and certainly do not provide services to them. Very simple. You should direct this complaint at the provider who decided to host KF.

"But this is the job of the cops!"

KF has existed for many years. Cops have not done anything against them, and they won't do so in the future. Quite a few of them are actively *members of* KF.

"Then you should reform the cops!"

A) This is not viable, as you will learn from basically anyone who has spent a non-negligible amount of time on trying to make that happen.

B) Even if it were, that would *at best* be a multi-year process. During which marginalized folks would continue to get harassed and killed. The answer to that is "no".

"But we shouldn't give up these really important principles, even when things get bad! They protect us all!"

You know that meme from Shrek? "Some of you will die, but that's a sacrifice that I'm willing to make."

That's you right now. You're demanding that marginalized folks sacrifice themselves for your personal comfort blanket around internet freedom.

Don't you think that you should leave that decision to the marginalized folks affected by it, whether they wish to be your cannon fodder?

And of course that 'sacrifice' was never actually necessary to preserve internet freedoms, but that's something that you're unlikely to understand until you've accepted that it's not your choice to make and you'll have to look for other ways.