[paulchap]

I don't think that laws that dictate companies how they have to manage their property are inherently bad. > Consumer protection law should protect consumers, not their convenience. My comment was targeted at the claim that mild censorship on privately owned platforms should be regulated in such a fashion, because their users depend on it. If you sign up for something, you should know what you sign up for. It's perfectly alright if you disagree with their measures. That doesn't mean you should call upon a body of law to penalize them. If Mrs. Fisher doesn't like the fact that her landlord is asking her to lock the door on her way out, she shouldn't be lobbying for the OPEN IT act. She should settle matters responsibly, or... move?

Basically, I'm just saying I found the grandparent a bit... overkill ;-)

[naasking]

> My comment was targeted at the claim that mild censorship on privately owned platforms should be regulated in such a fashion, because their users depend on it.

If this incident happened in a vacuum, I would agree. Unfortunately that isn't the case. The censorship ranges from mild to extreme these days, and now even the mild cases drive the wedge deeper. The unrest in the US is only just beginning I think.

Anyway, the post to which I initially replied is a common response to private censorship, and the irony of arguing that private companies should be able to do anything with their private property apparently escapes most people who make it. "Oh, private property, right. So let's eliminate the minimum wage then, because that money they wouldn't otherwise pay to fill a role is the corporation's private property. No? Is private property suddenly not the only thing that matters?"

[amanaplanacanal]

Private property is not the only thing that matters, but Congress cannot taking away a company’s free speech rights, per the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

You might not like it, but that is the current reality. Personally I like it. I would much rather have corporations decide which speech is allowable on their platforms than have the government decide which speech is allowable.

[naasking]

> but Congress cannot taking away a company’s free speech rights, per the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

This is not quite correct. Corporations used to be bound by their own charter until Congress relaxed those restrictions. Congress makes the rules under which corporations can operate. The Supreme Court ruled on how the current rules should be interpreted against the Constitution, but those rules are fairly arbitrary.

In any case, I'm not even suggesting "taking away their free speech rights".

> I would much rather have corporations decide which speech is allowable on their platforms than have the government decide which speech is allowable.

This is a false dichotomy.