[bckr]

I agree with this sentiment, although I agree it's stupid that The Hill was suspended.

If anyone wants to give a reason why these arguments are always about freedom of speech VS censorship, instead of being about private property + free markets, please I'm open to this.

[DenisM]

1. Markets fails under the weight of monopolies. Youtube needs to be broken up or regulated.

2. There was a supreme court decision that a platform (in that case a large mall) that makes itself a de-facto public square has to act like one, accruing responsibility to protect speech. I believe this is the right link: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-s...

[michaelmrose]

1. People without content share video on the internet and even sell it on plenty of sites. You might as easily not organically get it front of as many people who aren't explicitly looking for it but you can certainly share it and your content being unpopular doesn't imply that they have a monopoly.

2. Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution not the US constitution protected their right to promote nazi literature at the mall. It is also completely bonkers nonsense and invention. It is in fact the exact sort of judicial invention our current majority claims to be against it says.

> Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

It nowhere says that the mall ought to provide a venue. Notably it says you may publish not someone else must publish for you with their ink and paper.

This is just CA making up law from whole cloth to suit their disposition.

[15155]

> Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution

Where is YouTube headquartered?

[michaelmrose]

Alphabet is incorporated in Delaware and Californias law doesn't say what they said it said.

Good luck convincing a judge that YouTube can't ban people.

[bckr]

Cool thanks for a useful answer. I agree with your first point definitely.

[scarface74]

If only Trump wasn’t so poor he couldn’t start his own video hosting service. It’s not like he’s a billionaire or something.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

The difference between the private property + free market argument is that much of the HN crowd is sympathetic to the deranked content.

[rhino369]

One issue you should consider is that the government can exert soft power on these companies.

The same people who regulate, pass laws, and appoint prosecutors who oversee litigation against big tech, also hold hearings and blame social media for fake news and extremism. There have been explicit calls to clean up their content or face regulation. That starts to implicate government censorship.

Google doesn't give a fuck about election integrity. They do business all around the world in places without elections. They use slave labor. But they are afraid US politicians might do a privacy crack down.

[bckr]

another interesting point

> slave labor

Can you be more specific?

Googling "Google slave labor" reveals a lawsuit from 2019 or so from folks whose children were injured & died in cobalt mines that big tech ultimately received refined cobalt from.

The case was thrown out[] because the companies were found to have just purchased refined cobalt down the supply chain, and the labor did not fall under the definition of human trafficking.

[] https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/federal-court-dismisses-...