I would be open to a discussion about some kind of “fairness doctrine” for these companies - but as is, if it’s a private company, they are under no obligation to host speech they disagree with.

Is it problematic that people take social rejection as a reason to further radicalize? Sure - but such is human existence - and where is their personal responsibility to observe their social environment and alter their behaviors/beliefs if they are unhappy with the results they are receiving?

I see the point you're making. If we deconstruct the whole matter and look at it from an existential point of view, humans are incredibly constrained in their freedoms by the nature of our existence. In a fundamental way, our language and culture predetermines what we can think and how we think, and our environment is probably a bigger impediment to freedom of speech and thought than anything else.

But from a policy perspective on the ground, I think the ideal of freedom of speech should eclipse the concerns of private platforms wherever possible. But this is not to say we should not police the boundaries of free speech. In fact, if we had a more strict enforcement policy about unprotected speech like direct threats (such as L. Lin Wood's declaration that people should execute Mike Pence by firing squad [0]), we might not need these platform interventions at all.

[0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-...

Sure - but we’re not in that policy place with regards to social media, and they will fight any attempt to exert that kind of requirement.

Agreed — I'm not trying to say I know the answers. However, I do believe there's a role that social media companies have played in this polarization that needs to be addressed. Tristan Harris (of The Social Dilemma fame) makes very good points in this regard. Many of the political problems we have are thanks to to a distorted landscape of information distribution centered around advertising and platform addictiveness.

Maybe we need a "C-SPAN/NPR of social media".

I agree that they are under no obligation to host speech they don't agree with.

Let's say if these companies are monopolies. Should they still hold the same power?

Isn’t the general solution there to bust the monopoly?

The main exception is utilities which generally operate as natural monopolies. They should be (and generally are — this is isn’t a new idea) regulated to only be allowed to deny service for limited, specific reasons. There’s room for improvement here. ISPs are relatively new to being treated as utilities and many ordinary regulations that should be in-place are missing.

Imagine a TV news network with audience of 1 billion people which will give free airtime to one political party only, especially during the election cycle. How big of an advantage this is and how much is this kind of reach worth? Aren't there campaign laws about this kind of thing?

Are you saying this speculatively or because you understand that your hypothetical is already the functional end of our media landscape?

What? Are you proposing we ban Fox News? :)

First, election cycle is over; second, they are not banning one political party.

There's no real dangerous slippery slope. Don't kill people, or threaten harm, and you'll be fine.

I see this as the same argument against encryption.

You don't need it because if you don't do anything wrong you don't really need it.

I don’t see a slippery slope here.

All the precedents here are well established.

Explicit, credible calls for violence have never been protected speech. Parler’s own TOS forbid it. No moderation effort can be perfect, but we don’t need to argue in this case whether their moderation is sufficient. A violent insurrection was openly discussed and organized by thousands on Parler and then they went and did it. Lin wood called for the execution of the Vice President and many of his followers attempted to do just that.

In terms of the limits on a person or business to control with whom they will do business, utilities — ISPs in this case — should be regulated so they can only deny service for specific, limited reasons. They generally are, though I know this needs improvement.

Beyond that, businesses and individuals should have wide latitude to decide who to do business with.

What concerns me is the strange inversion freedom of speech has undergone in the Trump era. Instead of protecting the people from the government, it’s now invoked to protect the government — and supporters of the current administration — from the people. Now it means suppressing ordinary liberties like the right to not support people, content or speech you don’t want to.

> Lin wood called for the execution of the Vice President and many of his followers attempted to do just that.

I am in Europe so have not been paying too much attention. Your quote sound like hyperbole, can you show me some evidence that people actually tried to execute the vice president.

Literally took 2 seconds to google: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-mike...

Yes, that is true. Why do you people keep saying that? You're 100% legally correct. There's something else that people have and they're called morals and ethics. I, and many others, share that it is moral and ethical for someone to be able to say their repugnant mouth breathing garage however they choose. Then I get to decide if I want to interact with that person. Not some supposedly open to the PUBLIC service.

They're not open to the public though, they're open to a base of people who play by their terms and conditions.

That is not free speech but the 1st amendment to the US constitution. Obviously related but not the same thing.

>That is not free speech but the 1st amendment to the US constitution. Obviously related but not the same thing.

Your right to free speech does not oblige private corporations to provide you a platform to speak it.

Yes it does. Rights without the means to exercise them are worthless.

>Yes it does. Rights without the means to exercise them are worthless.

A corporation refusing to repeat your words does not deprive you of the ability to speak freely.

Free speech is about communication, not creating soundwaves no one can hear.

> Free speech is about communication, not creating soundwaves no one can hear.

So go shout your message in Town Square?

That's illegal from lockdowns right now.

And even if it wasn't taking "no one" literally is not constructive.