> known bad actors

If they are known bad actors, let the police do the job of policing the internet. Otherwise, all bad actors are ultimately arbitrarily defined. Who said they are known bad actors? What does that even mean? Why does that person determining bad actors get their authority? Were they duly elected? Or did one of hundreds of partisan NGOs claim this? Who elected the NGO? Does PETA get a say on bad actors?

Be careful what you wish for. In some US States, I am sure the attorney general would send a letter saying to shut down the marijuana dispensary - they're known bad actors, after all. They might not win a lawsuit, but winning the support of private organizations would be just as good.

> they certainly don’t have to condone it via their support

Wow, what a great argument. Hacker News supports all arguments here by tolerating people speaking and not deleting everything they could possibly disagree with.

Or maybe, providing a service to someone, should not be seen as condoning all possible uses of the service. Just because water can be used to waterboard someone, doesn't mean Walmart should be checking IDs for water purchasers. Just because YouTube has information on how to pick locks, does not mean YouTube should be restricted to adults over 21 on a licensed list of people entrusted with lock-picking knowledge.