The reason why we want governments not to censor and control our speech is because they have so much power.

Businesses have this level of power now.

> The reason why we want governments not to censor and control our speech is because they have so much power.

Specifically, the kind of power represented by the monopoly on legitimate use of force, which means their censorship obstructs the marketplace of ideas in which private actors decide which views to express and relay and success is by persuasion that the ideas are valid and should be adopted and relayed by others.

> Businesses have this level of power now.

No, they don't, except insofar as they direct the institutions of government, or act as arms of government in the form of protected monopolies on essential services.

I think these giant corporations are effectively quasi-government organizations. Just like the large banks have spent large amounts of money lobbying and have populated influential positions in the treasury for years. These corporations like Google are doing a similar thing in technology [0].

[0] https://qz.com/257839/the-white-houses-roster-is-starting-to...

If he's able to patronize another business with his dollars, then the business does not have that type of power. The reason why governments are held to a higher standard wrt individual rights is because an individual generally cannot just choose another government; they are by definition monopolies.

If it were a monopoly business - say Google, Facebook, the local ISP, or Microsoft in their heyday - you might have more of a point. Few people threaten to quit Google because they may encounter rude assholes on the Internet.

The power over who gets to host what on the internet is _extremely_ consolidated, especially for media. A few companies are effectively playing the role of government as far as censorship goes.

that's ok, vote with your wallet, just as long as you don't pressure spotify to change its policies then all fine i guess \_(ツ)_/¯

We can voice our opinions/concerns. This is very basic principle of democracy. Protests are one of the most important feature of democracy. Without protests, we won't have a lot of basic rights we take for granted now.

Online comments are probably the most weak form of protests. Spotify can ignore it or not. They may lose revenue or not. But no one is forcing anyone.

Wait, so you support freedom of expression, unless that expression pressures Spotify in this case? How do you relive that blatant contradiction in your thinking? People have a right to be intolerant of Alex Jones, unless you think his freedom to be a bloviating asshole somehow trumps other people’s freedom to be intolerant of him and any who carry him?