[parminya]

This is a case for regulation* and for promoting competition and diversity in the marketplace. It's not a case for treating them as governments. If they're governments, who chooses their leadership? Do they have one board, selected by the US president/according to the rules of the US Congress, that is applicable in the US, and another board, selected by the Canadian PM/according to the rules of Canadian law, that is applicable in Canada? How much are we going to pay to their shareholders for confiscating their property?

* Banning moderation is a form of regulation. It falls far short of treating them as governments. It is possible to say "I want to regulate Twitter" without having to make weird statements like "We should treat Twitter as a government".

[welshwelsh]

Nobody said that they are national governments. They are organizations with governance policies.

Even if corporations are not governments, they are far more similar to governments then they are to private individuals.

Moderation is a form of regulation- it is a way of regulating speech. Banning moderation is deregulation.

"More platforms" is not the answer. In a democracy, when people are publicly discussing matters of public or political importance, other citizens have the right to participate in that conversation.

[joshuamorton]

> Nobody said that they are national governments. They are organizations with governance policies.

Under this definition, practically any organization "is a government". My college debate team, Tesla, your local Starbucks. All "governments", because they are organizations have a governance policy (which really just means "leadership").

> Banning moderation is deregulation.

No. The government controlling how corporations can act is, definitionally, regulation. You can argue that is good regulation, but it is regulation. If I am allowed to censor you, that is less regulation than if I am legally prevented from censoring you.