That's sort of the point, though, isn't it? In the case of a government, there's a broad prohibition against censorship regardless of content. So whether or not I approve of an idea doesn't enter into the equation when faced with government censorship.

But if I don't feel there's a similar prohibition against corporations or individuals censoring things on their platform/property/whatever, then I have to think about whether or not I agree with the proposed censorship for other reasons. That's not a retreat to the motte - that's just an acknowledgement of the fact that anti-government-censorship arguments don't necessarily apply to private entities.

Once we're dealing with an entity for which I don't have a blanket objection to censorship, it makes perfect sense that I would accept some content bans but not others, based on my opinion of that content.

But there's still an argument against censorship, even given your starting point. They may at some point decide to ban content, and that may be a ban that you don't accept - that you think is wrong. If you're not going to like it when it's done to positions you agree with, then you have a reasonable basis for opposing it when it's done to positions that you disagree with.

You can disagree with a specific instance of moderation while defending someone's right to perform moderation in general. How is that different from disagreeing with a specific thing someone said, but defending their right to say it?

Sure, that's not an unreasonable position to take. But I also don't think it's unreasonable for someone to object to some instances of censorship and not others. It's certainly not fallacious to take such a position.

> Funny how this argument is only put forward for cases in which the author agrees with the censorship.

Not really. I've frequently seen the argument made that particular censorship is within the legitimate purview of a private actor, while still being disapproved by the speaker.

> If facebook tomorrow banned all LGBT content I have a feeling "it's a private company" would not be an acceptable defense for anyone currently using it.

Facebook absolutely has the right to censor all LGBT content, and them doing so is not a cause for government intervention.

Facebook also absolutely should not censor all LGBT content, and I would condemn them and cease use of the platform if they did.

And then where do you go? Is there _really_ an alternative to the facebook and twitter where you have the same integration to the world? This is the key question with the simple argument that private companies are free to curate in a completely opaque way.

So maybe more alternatives is the answer.

It's possible to agree with a company's actions and defend its right to do those actions. It's possible for that same person to disagree with a company's actions while but acknowledge they have the right to do it.

It's impossible to refute your hypthetical because FB would never do such a thing because of the reputational and financial cost.

If Facebook tomorrow banned all LGBT content, the correct recourse to that is legislation (or voting with your feet/clicks), not some fallacious conflation of a company's right to moderate their private social platform and a user's right of free speech.

But this argument has zero nuance. You have to meet the parent where their line is actually drawn. Facebook is still subject to laws despite being a private company.

"Facebook is allowed to host or refuse to host any subset of legal speech so long as refusals doesn't target any protected classes or otherwise violate US laws."

I still think you can argue your position from here but there is a perfectly defensible argument for why banning LGBT content would be stopped while banning puppy videos would be allowed.

"banning LGBT content" entirely is the wrong argument here. There could be a perfectly reasonable arguments for why a specific piece of LGBT content would be banned. At which point you will hear the "It's a private company" proponents switch up the line and argue how it's not right.

> There could be a perfectly reasonable arguments for why a specific piece of LGBT content would be banned. At which point you will hear the "It's a private company" proponents switch up the line and argue how it's not right.

The thing is, "its not right" and "its not within Facebook's right to free speech and is instead a violation of someone else's free speech" are two different things.

The people arguing "its a private company" are generally not responding to arguments that Facebooks moderation decisions are merely wrong, but to arguments that they are violation of others' free speech rights rather than exercises of Facebook's free speech rights.

People who argue that free speech is somehow only applicable to the government do a bait and switch between the first amendment, which is, and freedom of speech, which isn't.

Which is why I linked to the moat and bailey argument. The first amendment is a non-issue. Freedom of speech is something completely different which has nothing to do with one law from 3 centuries ago that limited the power of the federal government to limit peoples rights to free speech in certain areas.

We know the opinions of the people who wrote the first amendment and they would have not been amused by the arguments we see today. These would have let the East India Company silence anyone who complained about their tea in the areas they owned a charter.

> People who argue that free speech is somehow only applicable to the government do a bait and switch between the first amendment, which is, and freedom of speech, which isn't.

There are different understandings of the right to free speech, but a very common one (both now and at the time of the Founding and the First Amendment) is that it is the right of private parties to decide what ideas to expression, including deciding what ideas to use their resources to express and relay, free from government intervention, and that there is nothing outside of that freedom from government intervention included in the right. A private entity can, in that view, violate the right only when it acts as an, de facto or de jure, agent of the state.

It is not a bait-and-switch to hold a different view of “free speech” than your idiosyncratic one.

This is yet another bait and switch where a public corporation is presented as a private party.

To put it in the melodramatic language of the 18th century: A corporation has no soul to save and no body to punish. It has no natural interests and no natural rights. It is a legal fiction whose only use is to protect its owners from ruin and whose only justification is the public good. To pretend otherwise is an affront to both common sense and god.

> This is yet another bait and switch where a public corporation is presented as a private party.

No, the above is the fallacy of equivocation. “Private” in “private party” unambiguously refers to the “non-government” sense of “private”, where the “party” may be a corporate entity or natural person. It does not refer to the “private(ly held)” vs. “public(ly traded)” distinction regarding how corporate stocks are traded.

The rest of the world doesn't care about "the first amendment" nor about the people who wrote it.