[root_axis]

> free speech in a public forum has now become de-facto mediated by private companies acting in their own interest

This statement is misleading. Some public internet forums owned by large corporations are mediated by companies acting in their own interest. Nobody is required to use those forums and many alternative forums exist, other individuals or firms are also able to create their own online public forums subject to whatever speech standards they consider ideal.

> The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' controls

This is not true. The fact that government cannot censor speech is as critically important today as it ever was. It doesn't matter that a lot of speech passes through private companies because that is a free choice made by individuals who voluntarily push their speech through those companies and are free to take their speech elsewhere if they desire. Additionally, censorship or moderation is sometimes a desirable feature of a social media product because unbridled free-speech is sometimes abused in a way that is antithetical to the user experience and thus to business prerogatives.

[mindslight]

You're being disingenuous. Your assertions apply in some narrow senses, but are seemingly inapplicable to the overall situation. For most of society, webcrapps are currently the de facto town square. A clique of companies has obtained the position of censoring the vast majority of interpersonal speech, period.

But sure, there are practical angles in the US where, for example, if we could shift the popular focus to Free software, We could regain society's Freedom of Speech. Perhaps you're focused on the technicalities because you're trying to work towards that - but talk constructively rather than dismissively. It helps nobody to push a stubborn idea that there is some strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500. Whether the political bureaucracy controls corporations or corporations control bureaucracy, it's all government.

[root_axis]

> For most of society, webcrapps are currently the de facto town square

They're not public squares though, they're privately owned webservers, they don't become nationalized just because they're popular. That's like saying the dive-bar in your local town is the de-facto town-square because everyone meets there after work. Those individuals made the free choice to interact in a privately owned establishment thus they are subject to the rules of that establishment, if they don't like the rules they are free to go to another establishment with more favorable rules.

> A clique of companies is now in the position of censoring the vast majority of interpersonal speech, period.

100% false. They are within their rights to refuse to rebroadcast content you upload to the servers they own, but they cannot prevent you from rebroadcasting your content anywhere else.

> We could regain society's Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech existed before Facebook and Twitter, so your suggestion that their business practices have caused free speech to go away is incorrect.

> So perhaps you're focused on the technicality because you want to work towards that - and please do! But state it constructively rather than dismissively. It helps nobody to perpetuate a stubborn idea that there is some kind of strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500

This is pretty hilarious. You're suggesting I self-censor the "technical" truth in favor of your editorialized version of the truth because "it helps nobody to perpetuate a stubborn idea that there is some kind of strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500"... even though there is a very obvious "strict distinction" between the government using the threat of force to censor speech vs a private company operating a platform they own and pay for.

> Whether the political bureaucracy controls corporations or corporations control bureaucracy, it's all government.

So are you saying you want to ban corporate lobbying or that we should nationalize large influential corporations so that we can ensure they function in service of the people instead of share holders?

[mindslight]

As I said, disingenuous and dismissive. One can use your framework to justify anything USG or state governments do, under a theory that citizens have assented to a contract by being physically present. Clearly, overall constructive behavior matters.

[root_axis]

I think the disingenuous and dismissive labels more aptly apply to you for not addressing any of my specific points and your totally absurd suggestion that my reasoning can "justify anything USG or state governments do, under a theory that citizens have assented to a contract with such restrictions by being physically present"... and you're attacking me as disingenuous?

The combination of your low effort dismissal and attacks on my intellectual honesty makes me think this conversation is not worth the effort. Have a nice day.

[mindslight]

There is nothing to address in your points. They are not incorrect per se, but they miss the forest for the trees. We all know that presently "[Facebook] are within their rights to refuse to rebroadcast content you upload to the servers they own". Focusing on how something occurs does not make for a justification of why it should.

[shawnz]

> It helps nobody to push a stubborn idea that there is some strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500.

There is a huge distinction. Facebook doesn't have a military to enforce their policies. They might be the defacto town square but it's only convenience and network effects which make that true. If there was enough dissatisfaction with the way they are running things then they could be gone tomorrow. That's not comparable to kind of censorship that, for example, the CCP imposes.

[mindslight]

> Facebook doesn't have a military to enforce their policies

You're merely restating this assumed division in terms of a specific. Facebook has much less business need to deploy the military than say Exxon or United Fruit, but they still have the ability.

> only convenience and network effects which make that true.

Sure, but how does that make it any less real? The ability to move between states does not invalidate gripes about your current state government. Witness the volume of user complaints. If leaving were a continually-visited fictionless choice, they would have simply left.

> That's not comparable to [the] kind of censorship

They are of different magnitudes, but they're certainly comparable. I'd much rather be subject to Facebook's censorship regime that CCPs. But they're both censorship regimes - if we don't want the former to grow closer to the latter, then it behooves us to compare them.