[BitwiseFool]

> "Freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship, not private censorship."

I really detest this line of thought. What good are the concept of human rights when people declare that private companies by definition cannot infringe on them?

[derefr]

Interactions with companies are fundamentally voluntarist. Not in the sense that you can’t end up with a corporate dystopia; but rather in the sense that a motivated populace can destroy a corporate dystopia just by demanding legislation, without fighting a literal civil war, the way they’d have to do for a government dystopia.

[wazoox]

That's a pleasant fiction. Just like the fiction that the large company and the job-seeker are on an equal foot when contracting... Unfortunately, there are such things as corruption, lobbying and regulatory capture everywhere. The bigger the companies, the bigger the corruption, lobbying and regulatory capture, up to the point where, shazam! you're not in a democracy anymore.

[cduzz]

The government can take your life, property, family, and history.

I don't think it is unreasonable to hold "the government" to a different standard than "other people" or "corporations".

There is nuance to this, as there is with absolutely everything, but "monopoly on violence" is a big distinction.

[causi]

Because your rights end where other peoples' begins, and controlling what a company allows or doesn't allow on its platform is compelled speech, which is unconstitutional in the US. For example, a baker has the right to censor you by not allowing you to order a cake that says "Heil Hitler" on it.

[BitwiseFool]

> "Because your rights end where other peoples' begins"

Understandable, but what happens when rights conflict in the other direction? Why doesn't my ISP's right to block access to parts of the Web end where my right to consume information begins? Why do we place more importance on the 'rights' of an abstract non-living corporation above the rights of actual citizens?

> "what a company allows or doesn't allow on its platform is compelled speech"

Would this make things like Net Neutrality and public broadcasting laws likewise unconstitutional? The government always requires this for several things deemed to be in the public square. I see no flaw in bringing parts of the Internet's infrastructure into it.

> "a baker has the right to censor you"

Scale and scope matters. We're not talking about a mom and pop shop choosing not to do business with you, we're talking about multi-million and multi-billion dollar companies.

[krapp]

>Why doesn't my ISP's right to block access to parts of the Web end where my right to consume information begins?

For the same reason that a restaurant refusing service to you is not a violation of your right to food. You can still consume information without a contract under a specific ISP.

>Why do we place more importance on the 'rights' of an abstract non-living corporation above the rights of actual citizens?

We don't. The rights that protect corporations are actually protecting the people involved with and interacting with that corporation. Rights don't only exist exclusively for individuals, they can be expressed by groups and protect people in aggregate. The freedom of religion, for instance, would be meaningless if it only applied to the "abstract, non-living" concept of "religion," or could only be exercised by individuals, and not religious organizations.

[causi]

Would this make things like Net Neutrality and public broadcasting laws likewise unconstitutional

These are a trade the provider makes with the government to abide by certain rules such as content neutrality and in exchange get many advantages from the government. For example, common carriers are exempt from state and local barriers to entry and receive universal access subsidies. While I wish US ISPs were common carriers they currently are not.

[mardifoufs]

This is not about the US and you are misinterpreting the baker's Supreme Court case anyways

[causi]

I'm also not referencing it. The gay wedding cake case was decided on the basis of the baker being directly targeted by the local government.