Also, I remember when Twitter was getting really big one of their prominent founders (May have been jack but I can’t remember) did an interview in which they positioned themselves that social media platforms should use “constitutional logic” (for those not in the states, that’s the USA constitution) when regulating speech in their platform l, which, for better or worse, depending on context and things, “kill all white men” would pass the fee speech test.

Interestingly enough I actually can’t find anything that supports the example you’re referring to here. On the other hand I’ve seen tons and tons of sexist, misogynistic, white supremacist tweets that are super prominent on the platform.

Should all grocery stores in the country be allowed to do this?

If so, how do I eat?

They could just look at the credit card number, and observe that 7305 matches a blacklist.

They could use facial recognition in the checkout to check against a database and deny you service that way.

And so on, and so forth. There is no need to be hated by ordinary folks, just that the upper management/media doesn't like you.

What is the solution to this? Never adopting any objectionable views?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You made an objective claim, I provided an example that demonstrates it is false.

Actually, political affiliation and participants in political activity are protected classes in a couple of states, including California, where many HN readers reside.

"There are only three jurisdictions in the United States that explicitly bans political affiliation and activity discrimination, California, D.C., and New York. New York does not cover political affiliation discrimination, only political activity discrimination. Federal law discrimination law does not cover political affiliation or political activity. However, many states prohibit employers from influencing the votes of their employees."

Source https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff...

I tip my hat to California for still remembering what old-school liberalism means.

for ex: If you show up in my bar. Talk crap act like a jerk,etc. You're out. Social media is no different. You are not owed access to anything.

Do you think this would be a good outcome?

I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.

As well? I don't complain about them at all. Pointing out that it exists when people deny it is not complaining.

>I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.

Well I see two obvious differences that could cause that. The first simply being size. Facebook, google, twitter, reddit, etc are all, as organizations, far-left. And they all use their platforms to silence things they disapprove of, and push their politics. Whatever sites do the same from a far-right perspective are tiny. So, obviously there would be far more complaining from the far larger group of people who use the biggest sites on the web.

Second, all the supposed "far right" websites I see mentioned don't appear to be far right at all, and don't appear to do much or any moderating. They are "far right" because people with left wing views choose not to participate, not because they get banned. There's a big difference between being removed from a platform for having an unapproved view, vs being allowed to post your unapproved view and then people tell you it is wrong.