Because "free speech" is generally understood (in the U.S. at least) to be in the First Amendment sense -- that is, "the government shall not prohibit".
What your rebuttal refers to is (exactly per xkcd 1357) an expected right to be "hosted" by mainstream sources -- an entirely different kettle of fish. And where it becomes a straw man is where it (implicitly) conflates "minority views" with either (1) irredeemable hate space or (2) puerile garbage (a.k.a. the bread and butter of sources like Breitbart).
We should decide ourselves what we do and don't want to hear.
Yup, that's what we already do. When we decide to spend time on sites like 4chan or Reddit, or FB or HN, or CNN or RT, we make, therewith, a decision to consume content as they've chosen to filter it. And I don't know about you, but I don't have much difficulty choosing sources from the above list to focus my attention resources on.
They shouldn't be the ones setting the limits of our discourse.
They're not. By visiting sites that certain guidelines (or make use of ad networks enforcing certain guidelines), you're choosing to accept those constraints.
That ad exchange does not speak for me.
Then... it's within you power to not spend quality time on sites that make use of those networks.
Main point being, the policies applied by ad networks can't meaningfully be called "censorship". Nor is what's happening to Breitbart anything really new (if anything, it's just a recalibration of long-existing policies to a changing media landscape).
What your rebuttal refers to is (exactly per xkcd 1357) an expected right to be "hosted" by mainstream sources -- an entirely different kettle of fish. And where it becomes a straw man is where it (implicitly) conflates "minority views" with either (1) irredeemable hate space or (2) puerile garbage (a.k.a. the bread and butter of sources like Breitbart).
We should decide ourselves what we do and don't want to hear.
Yup, that's what we already do. When we decide to spend time on sites like 4chan or Reddit, or FB or HN, or CNN or RT, we make, therewith, a decision to consume content as they've chosen to filter it. And I don't know about you, but I don't have much difficulty choosing sources from the above list to focus my attention resources on.
They shouldn't be the ones setting the limits of our discourse.
They're not. By visiting sites that certain guidelines (or make use of ad networks enforcing certain guidelines), you're choosing to accept those constraints.
That ad exchange does not speak for me.
Then... it's within you power to not spend quality time on sites that make use of those networks.
Main point being, the policies applied by ad networks can't meaningfully be called "censorship". Nor is what's happening to Breitbart anything really new (if anything, it's just a recalibration of long-existing policies to a changing media landscape).