This is an interesting point: that a commitment to practical free speech for everyone, everywhere, will tend towards consolidation of platforms and natural monopolies. Cancellation, deplatforming, etc. might actually drive platform diversity and innovation which will, in turn, further freedom of expression far more effectively than public pressure to tolerate everything.
Careful , it will also drive to isolationism, echo-chambers and the quashing of controversial dissenting opinions.
If you dont think right now we have opinions as controversial as "Gay people should be able to marry each other if they want" was 100 years ago,an opinion which right now we consider almost self-evident, I would urge you to think harder.
Forget 100 years ago. I'm only 40 and I remember when anything even remotely suggesting homosexuality was considered perverted, and marriage wasn't even on the table.
I understand the idea that a diverse selection of exclusive communities leads to isolationism and echo-chambers. I just don't know how to judge if it's true or not.
As others observe, those exclusive communities were the precursors of our inclusive communities. They gave the marginalized a safe space to learn acceptance, confidence, and toughness, and take that out of their safe space. And no one is a member of just one community, isolated from the rest, even when we try to be. The issue seems to me to be less about how exclusive of opinion those communities are, and more about how freely one may join and leave them while staying within bounds.
Remember when gay and lesbian bars were a thing; back when straight people steered clear of them because of the stigma?
Not having the stigma is good overall, but in many places there's no longer queer-exclusive spaces. That whole segment of culture is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
