I think the point is that it depends on their reasons. The U.S. government imposes restrictions on broadcast content, but these restrictions are on extremely shaky ground, and they rely heavily on not venturing into viewpoint discrimination and focusing entirely on content discrimination (i.e. sexual nudity on ordinary daytime television).

1) There's an argument that deleting the comment disallows the expression in the first place.

2) Sure, private companies can do what they want. My point is that they just use the first amendment, because the current nebulous definitions aren't really working.

> 1) There's an argument that deleting the comment disallows the expression in the first place.

That argument doesn't hold water. If someone pins a message to my corkboard, I'm disallowing the expression if I express my disapproval by removing it?

> 2) Sure, private companies can do what they want. My point is that they just use the first amendment, because the current nebulous definitions aren't really working.

The First Amendment only works because non-governmental actors in society are allowed to decide what to publish, what to pass on, and what to throw away according to their own standards. It's not some blanket "everyone allow all" rule.

Most pamphlets are judged to be garbage and go into the trash, much to the consternation of their authors.

1) This is the platform vs publisher discussion. I'm just stating it as a potential case.

2) You agree with me. Again, my point is not that they shouldn't do that, but that the filter they use to do so is so highly subjective and opaque that it's no longer useful.

>> The First Amendment only works because non-governmental actors in society are allowed to decide what to publish, what to pass on, and what to throw away according to their own standards. It's not some blanket "everyone allow all" rule.

> 2) You agree with me. Again, my point is not that they shouldn't do that, but that the filter they use to do so is so highly subjective and opaque that it's no longer useful.

No, I don't. I think it's fine to have opaque, highly subjective standards; and such standards are can be very useful. My standards about what I publish, what I pass on, and what I throw away are like that. The costs of transparency can be extremely high, and subjectivity just can't be avoided. In some cases, my judgement may differ from theirs, and I may even say so, but ultimately subjective judgement can't be avoided.

1) That argument is false because the comment could be expressed on another platform or their own platform (e.g. a personal website).

2) That doesn't make sense in the context of a privately owned company, the 1st amendment doesn't define a standard for speech, it outlines explicit limitations of the government.