Why would we expect to be able to force Google to host speech they disagree with?
Regardless, I think the main point from the proceedings is: it was only found constitutional because of limited airwaves available (i.e. physical constraint of the medium, or exclusive government licensing). The same rule would not be constitutional if it applied broadly to "the press."[0]
In that sense, my point remains: there's nothing intrinsically exclusive about the medium of Google's websites that would prevent another from competing for the same "airwaves" (other than their perceived popularity), so a requirement that Google shares its "airtime" with others would not be supported by the precedent.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Decision...
I'll classify Fox News with other media, like Vox and Slate and Buzzfeed. (for the articles and shows at least, not necessarily the paid advertisements)
I'll classify Google and Facebook with other communication platforms, like T-Mobile and FedEx. Paid advertisements probably go in this category too, even if appearing within the other category.
Individuals who decide to run news segment on Fox News get denied, just the same as they would if they decide to run an article in Slate or Salon or The Atlantic. To communicate on a platform in that category, one must get hired or convince an employee that an interview (which would be tightly controlled) is beneficial to the employee.
So from that perspective, why should Google be treated differently from Fox News simply because Fox News has a higher standard for publication than Google?
We don't let the phone company disconnect phone calls in which people complain about the phone company, or about China, or about the governor. We don't let FedEx decide that you can't ship an unauthorized biography of the FedEx CEO.
Common carrier status has never applied to news media. The closest we ever had was the fairness doctrine, which is gone and wasn't the same thing anyway. Fox News is clearly news media. Most of what we call "Google" is clearly not news media.
It never applied to websites either, so why do you want it to apply to websites but not "news media"?
Do you believe that Fox News should be allowed to delete comments from foxnews.com?
I don't think so. It's the same old stuff, merely with a technology upgrade. Be thankful, so the first amendment doesn't only protect quill pens and lead movable type.
The comments on foxnews.com are at the borderline, so it wouldn't be bad to flip a coin. A reasonable approach would be that deletion is restricted to crude insults and off-topic rants. It doesn't really matter though, because the foxnews.com comments sit on the border between being a publication and being a generic public communications medium. There is no point splitting hairs.
Verizon's phone network is a platform that is privately owned and financed by the owner.
I think you're failing a litmus test here, unless you really believe that Verizon should have the right to drop phone calls that are politically offensive to Verizon executives.
The same goes for FedEx's logistics/transportation network. It too is privately owned and financed by the owner. Imagine that it were run by an executive who decided that the terms of service would include disposal of democrat campaign materials. Send a box of Biden yard signs, and they go into a dumpster. The tracking number just disappears from the system.
It's probably hard to see that Google is very much like Verizon when you happen to like Google's bias.
So what Google is doing with this particular epithet is fine is what you're saying? Sure hope there's no other cause that you champion that Google decides they disagree with someday.
It never really did, and this would only be more apparent if we tried to re-institute such a doctrine today.
Now we have just a few mass media content producers and a few mass social media outlets. The situation is beginning to resemble that which existed for decades, from the 20s to the 80s, in broadcast media.