[hash872]

It's their private property, they can ban or promote any ideas that they want to. You're free to not use their property if you disagree with that.

If 'silencing people' doesn't work- so online platforms aren't allowed to remove anything? Is there any limit to this philosophy? So you think platforms can't remove:

Holocaust denial? Clothed underage content? Reddit banned r/jailbait, but you think that's impermissible? How about clothed pictures of toddlers but presented in a sexual context? It would be 'silencing' if a platform wanted to remove that from their private property? Bomb or weapons-making tutorials? Dangerous fads that idiotic kids pass around on TikTok, like the blackout game? You're saying it's not permissible for a platform to remove dangerous instructionals specifically targeted at children? How about spam? Commercial advertising is legally speech in the US. Platforms can't remove the gigantic quantities of spam they suffer from every day?

Where's the limiting principle here? Why don't we just allow companies to set their own rules on their own private property, wouldn't that be a lot simpler?

[softwaredoug]

I used to believe this. But I feel more and more we need to promote a culture of free speech that goes beyond the literal first amendment. We have to tolerate weird and dangerous ideas.

[andrewmcwatters]

Better out in the open with refutations or warnings than in the dark where concepts become physical dangers.

[benjiro]

Refuting does not work... You can throw scientific study upon study, doctor upon doctor, ... negatives run deeper then positives.

In the open, it becomes normalized, it draws in more people. Do you rather have some crazies in the corner, or 50% of a population that believes something false, as it became normalized.

The only people benefiting from those dark concepts are those with financial gains. They make money from it, and push the negatives to sell their products and cures. Those that fight against it, do not gain from it and it cost them time/money. That is why is a losing battle.

[int_19h]

Whether something is normalized or not is mostly down to public opinion, not to censorship (whether by the government or by private parties).

Few countries have more restrictions on Nazi speech than Germany. And yet not only AfD is a thing, but it keeps growing.

[TeeMassive]

> It's their private property, they can ban or promote any ideas that they want to. You're free to not use their property if you disagree with that.

1) They are public corporations and are legal creation of the state and benefit from certain protections of the state. They also have privileged access to some public infrastructures that other private companies do not have.

2) By acting on the behest of the government they were agent of the government for free speech and censorship purposes

3) Being monopolies in their respective markets, this means they must respect certain obligations the same way public utilities have.

[hash872]

Re: 1- one certain protection of the state that they benefit from is the US Constitution, which as interpreted so far forbids the government to impair their free speech rights. Making a private actor host content they personally disagree with violates their right of free speech! That's what the 1st Amendment is all about

2. This has already been adjudicated and this argument lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri

3. What market is Youtube a monopoly in?

[themaninthedark]

2. This has already been adjudicated and this argument lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri

The 6–3 majority determined that neither the states nor other respondents had standing under Article III, reversing the Fifth Circuit decision.

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, stating: "To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction."

The Supreme Court did not say that what was done was legal, they only said that the people who were asking for the injunction and bringing the lawsuit could not show how they were being or going to be hurt.

[TeeMassive]

1. By accepting unique protections and benefice of and from the state, they are no longer entirely private. 2. See comments below. It doesn't say what you think it says. 3. Google has a quasi monopoly (it doesn't require having full control) and abused it with YouTube with its search result. While it's true that it's not YT entirely by itself.

[drak0n1c]

Read the article, along with this one https://reclaimthenet.org/google-admits-biden-white-house-pr...

In this case it wasn't a purely private decision.

[rahidz]

"Where's the limiting principle here?"

How about "If the content isn't illegal, then the government shouldn't pressure private companies to censor/filter/ban ideas/speech"?

And yes, this should apply to everything from criticizing vaccines, denying election results, being woke, being not woke, or making fun of the President on a talk show.

Not saying every platform needs to become like 4chan, but if one wants to be, the feds shouldn't interfere.