The Constitution does not impel corporations to provide a platform for hate speech. It is mostly about limits to government powers or rights of citizens vis-à-vis their government.

As a free market fundamentalist that usually gets massive pushback, I'm having trouble believing that most people making this argument normally promote free markets.

It certainly seems politically slanted in a single direction. Either way, I hope more people join the Fediverse and get away from these walled-gardens.

> I'm having trouble believing that most people making this argument normally promote free markets

I’m a staunch free marketer and First Amendment advocate. I think this is a freedom of assembly issue. Amazon should not be forced to assemble with these customers.

If anything, this same group has fought for a more extreme version of this freedom through its don’t-sell-cakes-to-gays schtick.

(To be clear, I support e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to speech. They say awful things. But they have the right to. If they started organising murders or lootings of gay-owned businesses, on the other hand, I would not consider their actions protected.)

I think an argument like this is consistent with free (i.e. few rules) markets. Isn't it the same argument as saying businesses should be allowed to refuse customers based on, say, sexual orientation? People may not agree with that and would want government to require businesses to serve some customers and, in this case, not others. However, I tend to think business and customer relationships should be voluntary as much as possible.

The person I responded to was clearly not speaking about what corporations allow. Reread the second paragraph.

He says in the third paragraph that the normative claims in the 2nd paragraph are true insofar as they risk shareholder value, not because they violate the Constitution.

That's an exceptionally liberal reading of what he actually wrote.

Protected from persecution by the government, which means it has absolutely ZERO relevance to the actions of a private company that has its own right to free speech. They can ban whatever they want! They could say “if you don’t use the oxford comma GTFO” It is their platform. If your solution is to nationalize Twitter, FB etc. then well China is right over there....

Also and because people were apparently deeply failed by their civics classes in HS, “publicly traded” does not mean a company still isn’t private. Private means not owned/run by the state.

The paragraph I pulled that quote from is clearly about the law and government, not corporations. It makes no sense otherwise. When was the last time you saw a corporation make a list of protected classes?

They just typically default enforcement guidelines to mirror them. Feel free to test that theory with burner accounts or look up moderation policies.

you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre which at this time, this essentially is.

i hope this isn’t news to you but there are all sorts of restrictions on free speech built up over the country’s history...

This is true for what the government can do legally that infringes on your right to free speech. Yes they can violate your first amendment rights in that case.

However, this does not apply at all to private companies. They could, theoretically, have ridiculous rules “Everyone must refer to themselves in the 3rd person or we ban you” and it is totally legal because it is their platform. 1st amendment applies to private companies only to guarantee their OWN right to free speech.

Correct. You can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't obstruct an existential war, you can't spread anti-vaccine propaganda during a pandemic.

These are all legal arguments with a well-established history.

I was saying the individual app’s TOS typically prohibit hate speech against classes that typically align with judicial cases of what constitutes a “hate crime” against a certain class or category of people