[strawberrypuree]

How about in situations where the speech is likely to get them banned from a country, or lose advertisers, or generally turn away users because of its association with speech that it doesn't like? Should businesses be forced to accommodate speech that threatens their livelihoods?

[FeepingCreature]

Per-country filter list. Ie. to the minimum feasible amount.

Platforms can figure out what ads you should get based on tracking from incredibly specific coincidences of IP addresses and browser user agents. I'm sure they can figure out what ads should not appear next to what content.

[strawberrypuree]

That doesn’t solve the brand reputation problem. Some users don’t want to be on a site that has anything to do with controversial / unsavory content. Bars have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason not protected by law (race, etc.). Social media is the online equivalent of the watering hole; should not they be afforded the same right?

[FeepingCreature]

No.

If people don't want to be on a site with someone, even if they don't have to interact with them, then that's just too bad. I will always favor local, positive rights over global, negative rights.

The right to > The right for somebody else to not.

I'm a value utilitarian. I think society should be organized so that humans can follow their interests. As such, I believe it is counterproductive for people to have an interest in others not following their interests; that's an interest that reduces net interest satisfaction rather than raises it.