[like_any_other]

> Freedom of speech is a legal right not a moral prerogative or entitlement.

No, the 1st amendment of the US constitution is a legal right. Free speech in general is a much broader concept, not limited to its legal implementation.

> For #2, I don't recall claiming a solution being difficult

You didn't, but it is how these discussions usually develop, and I thought of saving some time. And indeed that's how it went.

[notepad0x90]

it did not go that way, the problem is not difficulty of doing anything, a private corporation offering a free product has the right to do whatever it wants with that product. their reasoning behind GSB is not for you to debate.

Free speech in general is a legal concept. rights in general are not moral concepts, when you say you have a right to do something, it is always in the context of a rules based framework. When you say something is right (same word, different meaning) or wrong, that is morality. Speech can be right or wrong. prohibiting someone from speaking can also be right or wrong, but it isn't called "freedom of speech" or "censorship". If you can't articulate why something is morally wrong without referring to a right under some rule based framework, then you're not talking about morality, you're talking about not liking some rule.

When you are in someone's house, they have the right to decide what you can talk about or not talk about, because it is their home and your presence there is a privilege. Replace home with business, and then replace business with a free product that you're not even paying for and that's this situation.

"I don't like it" is not a moral reasoning. You need to be able to articulate why something is immoral if you're going to use morality as a reason. Similarly, you need to explain what specific laws grant you an entitlement if you feel like a legal entitlement is violated.

[like_any_other]

> Replace home with business, and then replace business with a free product that you're not even paying for and that's this situation.

And then replace business with country and society that enables that business' existence, and in whose sovereign land that business is located (i.e. in whose house it is), and that's still this situation.

> Free speech in general is a legal concept.

So if someone says "free speech", you just have no idea whatsoever what they're talking about, until they also tell you which country/jurisdiction they're talking about, do you?

And I didn't make a moral argument - I said that there is a moral (not just legal) argument to be made. I don't have the time or inclination to walk you through why free expression is desirable, or why letting a handful of giant entities crush speech and smaller businesses is undesirable. If you need that explained to you, I don't think we'll see eye to eye no matter how long we debate.

[notepad0x90]

> And then replace business with country and society that enables that business' existence, and in whose sovereign land that business is located (i.e. in whose house it is), and that's still this situation.

Yes, so it is a legal construct then? countries and societies generally exist under the rule of law. In the US, both legally and socially, we've decided to accept a free-market capitalist way. Under that social agreement, both individuals and companies have certain rights and entitlements over their products and services.

Under a more universal moral regime, if you have a good reason to believe someone might come in harms way, you have an obligation to do something about it so long as it is within your means to do. Preventing others from coming into harm supersedes the presumed entitlements of third parties. In this case, Google is nice enough to let users disable GSB or bypass GSB warnings. When a certificate for a website expires for example, similar to GSB every browser shows a warning. almost every single time, the site isn't compromised and there is no MITM attack happening, but we accept that is the best course of action, I don't see you protesting that because you understand it is the right thing to do. But in this case you just don't like GSB and you're looking for some moral ground to stand on because no other ground will let you.

> So if someone says "free speech", you just have no idea whatsoever what they're talking about, until they also tell you which country/jurisdiction they're talking about, do you?

You just said it isn't a legal concept, so why does that matter? But context does matter, in this case we're on a US based website talking about a US based company.

> why free expression is desirable, or why letting a handful of giant entities crush speech and smaller businesses is undesirable.

aha! you don't need to walk me through anything, but I think you confuse what is desirable and undesirable with what is moral and immoral. for desirable and undesirable, you use the law to enact your preferences. your desires however have no bearing on morality.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye either, but because I suspect our understand of morality and the rule of law is not aligned.