[swayvil]

Not "like life threatening" - Bad for our society.

In that free public conversation is centrally crucial to the sanity of our society.

And having that public conversation controlled by a profit-seeking entity is definitely detrimental to that conversation. And thus detrimental to the sanity of our society.

And an insane society is obviously all kinds of threatening.

[nobody_at_all]

Again, Google is not stopping you from using your speech.

If they ban you, they are telling you that they don't want you on their private property.

They don't take away your internet connection.

When did society need Google, or Twitter, or FB to function? They do not. Those are simply three websites. There are literally millions more.

If this site banned me, I lost literally nothing. If Google Drive banned me(assuming I have an account, which I do not) I lost literally nothing. Same for FB. Same for Twitter.

They are not required for a functional society.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[swayvil]

To the degree that Google's service is popular is the degree to which it "stops me from using my speech".

Because the public conversation requires a public. Right?

[nobody_at_all]

That is not even close to true.

They stop you from using their services, that is it.

You have no right to access popular private servers.

You have no right to a conversation because everyone else has the right to ignore you if they so choose.

Again, private companies can not be forced to give you server space. That pesky first amendment thing and all.

[nobody_at_all]

Show me where you have a right to access a popular server that is not owned by you.

Show me where you have the right to have a conversation. That means that others can be compelled to talk to you.

[swayvil]

Oh, but it is true.

If their service is popular, then the public conversation is to that degree affected. Clearly.