[kanox]

Completely disagree: the rights of individual authors should trump the rights of platforms, otherwise we will find ourselves in a situation where free-speech only applies to Facebook, Google and assorted media companies.

It is incorrect to conflate "hosting" with "speech", it is already obvious that being hosted on YouTube is not an endorsement by Alphabet corporation.

[_dibly]

The platform is private, so the 'individual author' isn't having their free speech restricted by being restricted from a single private platform. If someone gets banned from Twitter for posting statements inciting violence, there's nothing stopping that person from going to other outlets like Reddit or Facebook, or even starting their own site/newsletter. But if a private company were legally incapable of removing content that they determined was unacceptable on their platform, that would be totally okay with you?

[wolco2]

A platform is neutral by nature or it's not a platform.

Like a standard can be used by all.

Or a Foss project can be used by all.

[RuggedPineapple]

This isn't true in the slightest. Your 'neutrality' or whatever isn't important at all. Every single paper and pamphlet the people writing the first amendment were familiar with was deeply, intrinsically partisan. Those 17th century platforms still expressly retained the right to decide who featured inside their pages.

[_dibly]

Neither of those things are owned and moderated by a private company, and private companies definitely don't orient their product on the basis of neutrality.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Individual authors have no constitutional right to have their views published on platforms privately owned by others, so there is no right they have which could trump the rights of platforms. In order for there to be a contest of rights here, a constitutional amendment would be needed to grant the right to have one's views promulgated on private platforms.

[kanox]

Large platforms (for example >10m users) should be forced by law to publish everything which is not otherwise illegal.

[_dibly]

What if a large platform has strict posting rights to cultivate a specific community standard that has nothing to do with the law? If my power-washing forum gets to over 10m users I'm now legally obligated to publish everything that doesn't violate US law, regardless of my site's content moderation policy?

What about large platforms based in other countries with a strong user base in the US, or vice versa? Do you force tech companies based internationally to comply with US law for content moderation purposes globally, or just for US residents? If not, what's to stop Facebook from moving their offices to Canada and continuing their business model as-is?

I fail to see how this is an even remotely reasonable assertion.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Sure, it's fine to have that belief. Just, to make it work in a world where the Citizens United precedent exists, you really need a constitutional amendment. Or a supreme court willing to make a really creative interpretation of the constitution and precedent landscape. This isn't a normative statement about what ought and ought not to be. It's just an observation of what is.

[RuggedPineapple]

If someone wants to give a sermon on top of your kitchen table over dinner time, would you object to being able to throw them out? Does an author have the right to come print their work out on your printer, using your ink and paper?

[kanox]

This should be specifically targeted at large internet platforms and service providers (like ISPs). Some sort of cutoff can be found based on revenue, there are plenty of other regulations which only target companies above a certain size.

[SideQuark]

>there are plenty of other regulations which only target companies above a certain size.

Conversely, there's even more regulations and more importantly, rights, that apply to every company. One of those is freedom of speech, i.e., the ability to not be forced to publish on a private platform the views of everyone.

[emteycz]

Absolutely disagree. Platforms are owned by people just like you and me, and there are small-scale platforms too. I can even foresee myself running one, and I don't want to lose my rights over my property just because somebody thinks large platforms are wrong.