[NaturalPhallacy]

Exactly. People keep ginning up false analogies to justify censorship.

If you create a service deliberately designed so that anyone can sign up and start posting things without so much as an employee approving their registration, then you've deliberately created what amounts to a public square.

To then selectively censor people on such a platform is tantamount to a bait & switch. You promised people a public square, and then revoked that mechanism for people you disagree with.

And if you think big tech doesn't all have the same bias, take a look at this graph: https://i.imgur.com/Si183zE.jpg

Social media like twitter and facebook aren't a newspaper. They're not a podcast. They're not a TV show. They're a digital public square. The sooner we collectively admit that, the better.

[wvenable]

> If you create a service deliberately designed so that anyone can sign up and start posting things without so much as an employee approving their registration, then you've deliberately created what amounts to a public square.

That makes no sense. You can literally build something identical to a literal physical public square in the real world and still kick people out because it's private property. This is no different than that.

[legacynl]

> If you create a service deliberately designed so that anyone can sign up and start posting things without so much as an employee approving their registration, then you've deliberately created what amounts to a public square.

So if I host an open-mic night in my comedy-club, i lose the right to reject applicants?

[NaturalPhallacy]

False analogy. Twitter et al deliberately encourage and sometimes try to force you to create accounts and join their platform. Instagram won't even let you look at stuff without creating an account and logging in.

Is your hypothetical comedy club deliberately and indiscriminately trying to drive people into coming in to increase the number of people inside it? And bragging about how many people are in there?