Those companies have a MUCH weaker stranglehold over global communications than the media companies of 30 years ago. I can publish a website and have it viewed by (almost) anyone in the world without going through any of those 4 companies.

If you had a video or book or article 30 years ago, you couldn't even distribute it yourself around the world without the partnership of a major media company. It is way easier now.

Did people consider this a danger to free speech in the 90s? I certainly don't remember it that way. No one was worried that you couldn't get a main stream publisher to publish your crackpot theories, or that no cable tv station would air your crazy rants. No, you were forced to self publish, and deal with the fact that your audience was a lot smaller than if you could get a major publisher/media company to publish your work.

The NyPost still has a website, and anyone can still go to see it. It is way more accessible than self-published work was 30 years ago.

It's interesting to see how quickly Silicon Valley culture has changed over the past 10 years from one of free speech absolutism to "benevolent censorship". The people so vociferously clamoring about the nightmare-hellscape of a world without Net-Neutrality are now telling us that a handful of major corporations actively and blatantly censoring speech is no cause for concern.

Net Neutrality is different. No one is arguing that it is ok to block NyPost at a network level. Free speech does not mean a free platform.

Net Neutrality is not really that different. These corporations just want to be the ones doing the blocking instead of allowing ISPs to do it.

You honestly don't see a difference between net neutrality and platform content moderation?

This is like not seeing the difference between allowing anyone to drive on a public road verse forcing everyone to pick up all hitchhikers.

If a very small number of platforms control essentially all of the content people are exposed to, the distinction starts to blur.

Sure I see a difference, but I don't think it's nearly as significant as you seem to. These corporations wield an immense amount of power, and although they don't (individually) have the ability to completely silence anyone, neither do ISPs.

I think the concern about the amount of power they wield is legitimate, and I think we, as a society, need to have a serious look at what that power means.

I just feel that the issue of blocking a particular site is tangental to the real issue of the power these companies have. I am much more worried about the way their algorithms work for choosing who sees what, but that is not a concern based on 'free speech'

I think people show their true colors when emotional, and many blame social media, misinformation, etc as why Trump won in 2016; whereas before they were praising how savvy Obama was to use social media, etc.

So if you think politicians utilizing social media to reach the people is ok, you also have to think it is ok for a foreign nation to use fake social media accounts to influence an election?

Social media is the tool, and some uses are ok and some aren't. I am not 'showing my true color' when I condemn someone who uses a knife to murder someone, even though I praised a master chef's use of a knife to cut food just the day before.

I, as the hypothetical Twitter CEO, choosing to silence or remove an account isn't a "big F" Free Speech issue.

The government telling me, the hypothetical Twitter CEO, that I am legally mandated to publish your tweet, be it actually misinformed or just plain unpopular, or face asset seizure and jail time as a consequnce -- that is an _actual_, real infringement on free speech.

It just turns out that a lot of those SV libertarian free speech absolutists were actually partisan authoritarian hacks that are now abusing the notion of free speech in the current online discourse, so that the government will step in and mandate publishing their particular flavor speech. The people arguing against Twitter having the ability to silence and ban accounts (for any reason) are arguing for a Propaganda-class of speech that must be repeated by all who have any influence.