| You've got a couple different ideas going on there. First, you make a fantastic argument for regulating ISPs as common carriers, bummer that's up in flames, one step forward two steps back. Secondly, at least in the US, the whole idea of the "protected class" is to combat over reaches just like most of your examples[0]. This is also why civil rights groups are general fighting to expand the definition of protected class (though I doubt fascists ever will be included) since private companies are very happy to act against gay and trans people, for example. As for non-protected classes ( having opinions on Israel fall pretty firmly into that) Facebook has the opportunity for the same calculus as they have with neo Nazis and the other alt-right menagerie. Are two-state proponents driving away more people than their removal will? Is this system perfect, I don't think so, but the idea of "forced free speech" is more distastful to me. Individuals or companies are free to curate the experience they want for their users (up and to current laws around protected classes). If the consumers don't like that they're free to set up their own network (this is why Im a huge proponent for federation). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group |
Does Facebook have a meaningful alternative?