[rgbrenner]

Yes, because the alternative is the government forcing a 3rd party to provide a platform for speech they disagree with. And since that platform isn't free, you're also forcing them to spend their own resources to support it.

Those 3rd parties have rights too. They shouldn't be required to support and provide resources for speech they disagree with.

[vageli]

> Yes, because the alternative is the government forcing a 3rd party to provide a platform for speech they disagree with. And since that platform isn't free, you're also forcing them to spend their own resources to support it.

> Those 3rd parties have rights too. They shouldn't be required to support and provide resources for speech they disagree with.

I think people keep conflating the notion of being _able_ to say what you please and having a platform to do so. I sympathize with these people because I have witnessed the erosion of the public square as a place to promote your own ideas (with people glued to their phones, with headphones on, etc).

However, I agree that we can't force service providers to host content they disagree with _for free_ but there's a reason we require water companies to provide water to synagogues and mosques alike.

I think as we advance technologically, access to information (and the platforms through which they are spread) will be regarded as a necessity to function as a member of society and will be regulated as such.