Under current laws yes. But the comment you're replying to is proposing a change, presumably to treat these huge platforms more like common carriers rather than publishers. I agree with them on private messages - the carrier should have no editorial control and no responsibility for what users say.
Something like Facebook Messenger is conceptually far closer to texting (or even just sending letters) than it is to a newspaper publishing your article. And I don't think anyone legitimately considers it similar to choosing which products to stock.
For public forums I think there's probably a better middle-ground. Possibly requiring transparency, like indication if a user's post has been edited or partially deleted by moderators, and explaining how posts are sorted/recommended/hidden.
> If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid.
Normally it's the decision not of society as a whole but rather of a few huge platforms. You may agree with banning QAnon accounts, but what about "anarchist groups" mentioned in the article? Or if the platforms go full WeChat (even scanning for text in images) to make sure your private messages are for the right politicians/companies/groups/laws/platforms and against the wrong ones?
> Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished.
I'd argue that editorial control over billions of conversations (and thus what billions of people appear to say/support) is far more powerful than editorial control over what a single newspaper says. Silent manipulation of public opinion in this way can even be used to make people less critical of the control that platforms have. I think it's something everyone should be cautious of, even if the current bans line up with what they consider dangerous views.
It is. The same free speech laws that allow Facebook and other platforms to exercise editorial discretion and ban unwanted content also allow newspapers, television and radio to choose what to publish and what not, allow businesses to refuse service and the posting of bills, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses to get lost when they show up at my door.
Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force platforms to host that speech. It's up to the so-called marketplace of ideas to decide whether or not your speech is worth spreading, and just as vendors can choose to stock a particular product or not, platforms can choose to host particular speech or not. Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished.
And yes, this implies that the marketplace of ideas can, potentially, reject a particular kind of speech and that some forms of speech may be more difficult to find a platform for than others. Free speech doesn't imply that all forms of speech must be treated equally or given equal merit, or that society cannot make distinctions between one form of speech and another, or discriminate between truth and falsehood, accepting one and rejecting the other. In a marketplace of ideas, it follows that not all ideas are equal.
If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586