I kind of agree, but at the same time, this line of thinking falls a bit flat IMO. There used to be certain social norms in the past, which are debatable to be helpful or not, but which used to define what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. Today, those norms are disappearing/being deconstructed (which is generally a good thing), but there is no replacement! In theory it is fine that everyone has the rights to express everything / boycott anything / not associate with anyone, but on a societal level, this doesn't work very well if not kept within bounds. This is noticeable in the level of polarisation - there are no norms to be respectful or try to listen to the other person - so people don't. Same with the right of association - it's fine that the law is that you can disassociate with/discriminate against anyone who doesn't belong to a specific protected group, but this means that if a significant part of powerful entities collude to suppress something, then that thing will be suppressed without any legal or social remedy. This has a destabilising effect on society as people are more and more drawn into their 'camp' where they preach to the choir and actively root out-group or non-conformist behaviour out.

I think this kind of reads like a rant, so I apologise for the wording and the formatting. My thoughts are not entirely clear and structured on the topic so I can't do any better right now.

an ISP is a utility. they're just, like, the phone company, man. i don't need them telling me what i can see, or say, and to them its all mostly the same anyway.

HN is not, and they can certainly ban what they want.