And furthering this: Until access is 100% free for every person. Until every person has the tools and the devices necessary to access available to them, for free. The internet and specifically the walled gardens are NOT the public square. It is a country club, not a park. Every aspect of the web today requires money and contractual obligations with PRIVATE companies.

Want to make it public? Make access universal and free. Until then its a country club, not a public park.

Actually, malls are public venues and the legal right to free speech can extend to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

For this topic though, nobody has been kicked out, silenced, or censored. Twitter has added a competing message.

That's not really what that decision says. It's much narrower than that.

It does not extend First Amendment protection to malls. It simply permits states to go beyond the First Amendment's protections in their enforcement of state laws.

My comment said nothing about the "First Amendment". Legal rights to free speech are larger than the first amendment to the US Constitution, and the general ideal of free speech is even larger than that.

edit-reply: You're arguing with me, but neither of your replies contains anything concrete that disagrees with what I said.

> Legal rights to free speech are larger than the first amendment to the US Constitution

Yes, that's what "go beyond the First Amendment" means.

You have free speech rights in malls in some states, because of state laws expanding the right past what the Constitution guarantees.

you run around naked in a public park you'll still get kicked out or thrown in jail.

And if you say things that the law says you can't say on social media, you should be stopped.

Note I said "the law", which is created by the democratic process (in theory anyway. Stop laughing at the back.) This is as opposed to the whims of a private company.

As for what things the law should forbid you from saying, that's another matter, and orthogonal to this one.

Your speech, whatever it is, is protected in public places.

Nope. You're wrong. Social networks should not be treated like private property because it serves as an agora. Being restricted by social networks only because you have a difference of opinion is effectively restriction of free speech. The government should treat them like public uni, and defend peoples' rights to speak in the platform from far left to far right.

The church tried Galilei for spreading fake news and misinformation in 1600s. We now know how dangerous shutting people up by force is.

> The government should treat them like public uni

You want the government funding Twitter's operations?

Incidentally, you can definitely get banned from public university campuses for misbehaving.

The government should create a law to treat them as public places because our rights can be infringed. That doesn't mean Twitter should be funded publically.

Misbehaving != alternative opinion.

Shall we nationalize my employer, too, because I can't yell "fuck you" at my boss?

Public universities have additional restrictions because they are organs of the state. Twitter is very definitively not in that category.

You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all. I think you should learn how to follow a conversation.

If a utility company is privately owned and it's denying service because you have 'different opinion about utility prices' thus threatening your life will you stand it?

> You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all.

No, we're not. Trump's tweets are still there. He retains the ability to post. All Twitter did was exercise their own free speech by adding a note below it.

Yeah, how about your speech being marked retarded every time? The court has this power and it can declare a person incompetent. But does twitter have this kind of authority?

Also I was not talking about the link being left, I was talking about your account terminated.

There's no inherent right to go unchallenged when raising unsubstantiated claims. Providing facts-checking can be seen as a service in those cases where it is important that the public make informed decisions based on facts. Social media has been mandated to combat fake news, and this is within their mandate, as well as outright banning any person or post on their private platform.

It may be good to raise the issue how much power social media should have, but please don't conflate the issue with personal vendettas of some public figures, or too much toleration of relativistic alternative facts.

hey! if fact-checking is a service, they could un-bundle it. Let the user choose! Let Twitter and Facebook and etc be platforms after all!

>It may be good to raise the issue how much power social media should have

I was specifically talking about this issue and it's the commentators that went to "personal vendettas or introduction of relativistic alternative facts."

Agree. People who pride themselves on being able to see fine distinctions and shades of gray, seem unable to comprehend that a virtual space, run by a private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing.

The intent of the 1st Amendment applies most strongly to political and religious views. Liberals love it when the 1st Amendment is used to defend communism, terrorists, or profane art. If Communists and Antifa were being squashed by Twitter, they'd be playing victim.

> private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing.

This is entirely and old thing. Every private company runs on publicly funded infrastructure. Roads, sewers, etc...

First amendment claims with respect to those things you state are loved by liberals are almost certainly to stop government censorship. That is after all what the First Amendment is about.

There is no applicability of the First Amendment with respect to what a private company may censor. This is why Trump may talk about "freedom" but his executive order will not be grounded on any First Amendment claim.

Rather, Trump will essentially force the interpretation that CDA 230 should only apply to "politically neutral" actors. The result will be that social media companies will not be able to "censor" content that might be political. Again, not because of the Bill of Rights but because the liability shield provided by CDA 230.

The practical result will be that all content that is not clearly illegal (and potentially content that is) will be fair game and unable to be censored as any censorship will risk a claim against political neutrality and jeopardize CDA 230 protection.