Freedom of speech means that here is no monopolistic power (such as the government) that has final say on restricting speech. However, it doesn't mean that you, as a private citizen or free-market-participant, have to aid and abet all speech that is directed at you. If someone tells me the Earth as flat, I do not have to give his ideas equal weight if I do not believe they deserve it, and I should not be compelled to help him espouse his beliefs either.

You're describing the status quo, and even that falls apart a little. There are already exemptions, like businesses being forbidden to discriminate based on "protected class", utility companies cannot refuse service to customers they do not like (as long as those customers pay), emergency rooms cannot refuse service to people they do not like, and so on.

What we have here is a small group of companies exerting quasi-monopoly power; Apple and Google controlling "apps" or Twitter and Facebook controlling "social media". Sure, they have some smaller competitors technically, just like East Germany had some smaller political parties technically.

If it was up to me, I'd change the status quo: Let FAAGT decide if they want to be publishers, no limited liability, or open platforms, limited liability but at the same time they have to agree to Freedom of Speech for all, unless it's criminal speech like incitement to violence, or some narrow additional predefined exemptions such as the option to not allow pornography or nudity or gore.

And then, if Parler fails to moderate their content again and leaves up criminal stuff, it's the job of law enforcement and courts to not only sanction the people who abused Parler to commit these crimes, but also the state to sanction Parler.

What is "FAAGT"?

I dropped the Netflix N in FAANG and added a T. Netflix is out of scope because they are an editorialized publishing platform without liability shield already. And added Twitter, which usually isn't big enough for FAANG, but in this context, by reach and influence, they deserve to be in the list. Could have been less lazy and just spelled it out. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm guessing "Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter"

You've been drinking the Kool-Aid liability is no-cure all solution, these platforms will merely cease to exist. I agree that they have quasi-monopoly powers, there are other platforms that have this though, they are now basically modern forms of Press & Media. Editorial decisions whether to publish or not and whether to self or government regulate are issues the world has experience with. The difference is in the scale and the speed at which these platforms can disseminate information. There is no clear cut solution (you'll see this if you look into press & media regulation) and society needs to decide how to move forward.

I’m not here to argue or anything, but I vaguely recall from reading from the federalist papers way back in high school that free expression without fear of reprisal was what we were going for. Is that not the goal? I feel like some really distorted arguments have flooded the internet recently, and I’m doubting my own recollection now.

In practice, the American revolution did not come about through open debate:

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/on-the-rudeness-of-mobs-pogue

'On October 25, the freemen of Essex County, New Jersey, proclaimed that anyone who adhered to the Stamp Act should be cast out of polite society, that decent people should have “no Communication with any such Person, nor speak with them on any Occasion unless it be to inform them of their Vileness.” This was not an isolated view. One writer to a Pennsylvania paper suggested, in language typical of the time, that a man paying stamp duties should be “branded with eternal infamy and reproach,” and cast out. “Let him be alone in the world—let him wish to associate with the wild beasts of some dark loathsome cave.”'

Very interesting. I think this whole debate may finally pierce many people's delusion's of grandeur.

> I vaguely recall from reading from the federalist papers way back in high school that free expression without fear of reprisal

... from government.

I will add that even with regards to the government, there are limits to free speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the archetypal example.

Some people seem to think that freedom of speech is something that can be broadly forced upon private organizations, and that’s simply not true.

If folks don’t like companies that, in their opinion, unreasonably restrict speech, then I suggest they vote with their dollars, their attention, and maybe their work (e.g., via competitors).

> If folks don’t like companies that, in their opinion, unreasonably restrict speech, then I suggest they vote with their dollars, their attention, and maybe their work (via competitors).

Like Gab and Parler! Oh wait...

I generally agree private businesses shouldn’t be forced to do business with anyone they don’t want to, but we’re talking about near monopolies that in many ways wield more power than governments.

Apple and Google each have a monopoly on app distribution on their platforms. Facebook and Twitter combined effectively have a monopoly on social networks.

Well, wait and see. The free market doesn't move in 24 hours. There is moderation that is clearly a good idea, moderation that is sketchy and moderation that is overdone. I may be behind the times, but I really don't think an app in the app store is that important. They still have a web site. The AWS ban is more concerning but if they have to they can move to foreign hosting - maybe this will be the push to finally get the Europeans to build up some tech companies.

Big tech have basically declared that 30% of America is unwelcome on their platform. That is overbearing moderation that is likely to provoke a market response. I'd give it 6-12 months to see if they can hold on to a monopoly even leaving that massive slice of the market in play.

AWS isn’t anywhere close to a monopoly and has one of the most lax AUPs in the game. These services can also self-host like the olden days.

As for Apple, yes. They do have a monopoly over their app platforms. Either a more robust PWA support framework or side loading needs to be a priority on iOS. I wouldn’t consider Google as having a monopoly over app distribution as you can sideload apps on Android and Android has (from what I’ve heard) well-rounded PWA support.

Gab and Parler are free to run their own datacenters. It has nothing to do with “monopolies”, which come and go.

Then those datacentres would be deplatformed from the Internet.

At this point, their only option to survive would be to build their own new internet. And that would need power/spectrum/land or other things that could be taken away from them by determined enough activism.

Maybe they could survive for a while by moving to a decentralised P2P/blockchain system of some kind. But that could potentially be blocked at an ISP level.

> Then those datacentres would be deplatformed from the Internet.

A few years ago I heard some people say we needed net neutrality. Republicans were against it.

I didn’t mention AWS.

I think to some degree Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter being as successful they are in their verticals and also being fairly progressive is not a coincidence. They have to attract the best talent in the world, which will not only be people that come from different races, but also sexual orientations, religions, genders, and more. You take the beliefs generally being espoused on Parler and some of that is fundamentally antithetical to the progressive ideologies that even allow these companies to be leading players in their fields. Describing these companies as monopolies is unfair because most of them are simply doing work miles ahead of competitors (Apple for example). Choosing to be tolerant isn't an arbitrary choice. It's probably at the core of their success. So even if a conservative ecosystem pops up to support Parler I believe the reason it doesn't exist already is because of the lack of talent. Same reason why so many smart Jewish scientists left Nazi Germany—intolerance leaves a lot of value and talent on the table, which is what you will need to outcompete others.

> I will add that even with regards to the government, there are limits to free speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the archetypal example.

Note that when this phrase was originally used, it was to justify imprisoning people who distributed flyers opposing the draft in WW1, and the supreme court later partially overturned it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

> Some people seem to think that freedom of speech is something that can be broadly forced upon private organizations, and that’s simply not true.

Why not? Private companies must respect your rights, like your right not to be discriminated against, so why can‘t they be forced to respect your right to free speech? Just because the status quo of the legal ecosystem is not ready to handle this edge-cases doesn‘t mean it can‘t be made to do it with some adjustments.

Because your rights do not override my rights, and if I run an Internet forum, chat service, etc you can’t force me to publish or distribute material I don’t want to. We are all autonomous citizens, including people who own or run communications services.

You can’t sell food without compelled speech (nutrition labels). You can’t sell medicine without compelled speech (side effect warnings).

There’s plenty of existing examples of compelled speech. We could simply say, “you cannot run a public/large forum without allowing mostly free speech”.

Who gets to define “mostly”? Every public Internet forum censors, whether they say they do or not. Even the *chan sites filter out and delete spam, griefing, child porn, etc. They have to or they would be overwhelmed and useless. The spammers have been advocating for maximalist free speech forever.

I think the compelled speech argument is extremely weak, we have very narrowly defined and specific cases in strictly defined circumstances. This would make it the default for vast swathes of common communications and as I pointed out introduce huge problems with noise, spam and griefing.

There's a difference between you running "a" forum and controlling 99% of the internet. It's good to break up huge monopolies.

Amazon Web Services does not control 99% of the internet.

They control ~32% of cloud services (https://www.parkmycloud.com/blog/aws-vs-azure-vs-google-clou...), and I assume if Parler moved to GCP they would be also blocked. Question what would MS Azure do?

That mostly leaves Alibaba Cloud (I have no idea if it is available outside China) and "Others" - so a 43%. Not much to choose from considering that the big players have the best prices.

This may be slightly off topic... are hosting providers subject to Sec. 230 protections? That is, if they don’t make a good-faith effort to remove illegal content (i.e. incitement of violence, bonus points for elected officials) they can be legally held responsible?

I see what you mean with giving equal weight to all rights, but there are implementation differences. To not discriminate, you’re restricting an action that might be taken. That does not incur cost or new effort. To facilitate speech, you’re compelling an action to happen that someone may not want to do, especially one that doesn’t provide any benefit to them and may incur additional costs.

The right of free expression is guaranteed by the first amendment by restricting the government from infringing upon your right. It doesn’t say the government or anyone else has to give you a microphone.

What about compelling a company to respect a citizen‘s rights? Do you find that fair? Companies are already compelled to do all sorts of things for the government or customers.

In order to ban me from a platform you have to take (negative) action towards me. My content is already on that network. Compelling to respect my rights means compelling a company to not negatively act against me.

They are not compelled to do anything for general citizens. They are in some cases compelled to treat certain classes of people the same way they treat other classes. That doesn’t compel them to do something they never would do, it compels them to do the things they already do for some, for all.

Those businesses are also free to close up shop if they can’t handle it. If they are dumb enough to explicitly say they don’t want to do something for a certain legally protected class of individual solely due to their belonging to that class, then IMO they deserve to lose their shirt.

>Why not?

That would amount to involuntary servitude, which is not permitted by the 13th Amendment.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

>I will add that even with regards to the government, there are limits to free speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the archetypal example.

Also see the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), which excluded from protection speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

The whole "if you don't like it, vote with your dollars" angle doesn't really work when a handful of companies own, control and host 99.999% of social media. The power that these private companies wield is greater than the power of any government. They're not democratic. They are driven by the unending pursuit of growth. They have no moral compass, so their rules are in their own private interest. They dodge taxes, support populist movements to virtue signal, and they quietly collude with governments that wish to spy on their journalists and citizens so they can "disappear" them for wrongthink. Their rules are "whatever is best for us".

I don't know what the answer is, but having seen these large private companies censor rational discussion of scientific fact, this scares me.

> The whole "if you don't like it, vote with your dollars" angle doesn't really work when a handful of companies own, control and host 99.999% of social media.

"Voting with your dollars" means taking your dollars and giving them to the 0.001% that agree with you. Then this will strengthen them a little so they may become 0.0011% or whatever.

Any large social movement should be able to support a share of the economy commensurate to its size, complete with their own journalists, printing presses, leaflet distributors, radio stations, TV shows, phone factories, app stores and social media apps, or whatever communication infrastructure they want to use.

Of course that requires lots of work, but if that work is divided by the number of people involved, it becomes manageable again (after all, the whole rest of society manages just fine).

If people want to skip that work and instead rely on others to provide them with everything, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get exactly what they want.

Well, but remember what happened when they voted with their "dollars", Parler was blocked.

This looks like a internet version of witch hunt.

Voting for Parler is not enough if you don't also vote for an app store that will offer Parler for download and a hosting provider that will allow them to use their infrastructure etc.

To use an analogy closer to the founding of the United States: if you want to publish a radical new newspaper, you need to be prepared to buy your own printing press and build up your own network of stores, because the existing printers and sellers may not want to support you.

Analogy with printing press would have been: There are just 3 printing presses and all of them are controlled by people that are democrats.

You are a republican, how do you publish your political pieces?

You have to create a 4th printing press from ground up (because people that have printing press parts are refusing to work with you).

Distribution is a more appropriate in this case.

One could argue this is not reprisal and more of "no shoes no shirt no service." These people aren't providing Parlor services for free. They are doing it as part of a mutual partnership to profit, and if they choose to no longer benfit/profit off of the business shouldn't they have the right? I mean, Apple supports many progressive initiatives like equal rights campaigns, and that is part of the brand. Shouldn't Apple be allowed to maintain that brand image? Supporting a company that is antithetical to that brand image may be a move that ultimately increases their shareholder value for all one knows.

Take Fox News as an example. They're not going to allow their platform to be used for liberal propaganda, and most likely also vet any advertisers. They aren't expected to just allow any content to be broadcast.

I guess a devil's advocate viewpoint could be that some of these services are platforms, but then again the reasons given for some of these bans aren't necessarily strictly political.

I would argue that there's no point appealing to authority since what we are going for changes with the times, but there's a fundamental difference between reprisal and aid. Say you wanted to host a website that was explaining the evils of cloud hosting, and you did this on EC2 (AWS). Amazon has every right to have in their terms clauses that disallow such content which they do not agree with. If they do host it they are doing damage to themselves, and if they do not host it they are simply not supporting an attack on cloud hosting. The act of choosing not to engage in business is not an attack in itself.

I guess, I mean that’s the tails-you-lose of it. It does feel as though somebody’s bought up all the printing presses, and in the face of scrutiny for doing so is disrupting swaths of the opposition party’s press apparatus as the incoming party takes over. I mean Amazon isn’t any ol’ business, but one with great reach facing historic threats of regulation.

It just doesn’t feel like the right thing for our republic. It feels like foul play, and I guess my recourse is at the ballot box.

I guess I think the points raised here and elsewhere about what businesses can do are specious. We still try to keep things fair.

In a few days, Parler is going to find a new hosting provider, and the networks (also private companies) will refuse to route to that hosting provider and the banks (also private companies) will close their accounts, unless they fall in line and ban Parler as well.

> and the networks (also private companies) will refuse to route to that hosting provider

There was once something called "Net Neutrality". As I recall conservatives were strongly against it.

Perhaps in theory, but in practice (in the US) freedom of speech is limited to government intrusion only, as defined by the constitution’s first amendment. There is no legal application, to private entities, of free speech.

When freedom of speech was codified as a value in the constitution, it made sense because the government is realistically the only entity that could engage in mass censorship. Nobody predicted a private company would get to that point, which is why those laws don't exist.

We must decide if that needs to change.

That's certainly untrue, at that time access to any sort of mass communication was even more controlled by a few private actors. There were not all that many major printing presses out there and a limited number of publishers would have truly controlled your only access to dissemiating information to a significant number of people besides actual in-person speech. And they certainly did choose what they were willing to publish.

>Nobody predicted a private company would get to that point

Not quite, the East India Company is a counter example.

The example of the EIC was used as an argument against the British Crown by proponents of American independence. Source: Dalrymple's The Anarchy.

The East India Company was processing (and reading) the mail of hundreds of millions of people, and freely choosing who is allowed to continue sending mail?

I’m sorry but that just isn’t true. The framing generation was worried about the tyranny of the masses, global corporations, religious authorities, and many more threats to self-governance.

That line of thinking has no historical basis in the US. In past times mass publishers, large newspapers, had every bit as much influence.

Influence yes, but they weren't able to censor communication between two private citizens. Social media is the new telephone.

I wonder what fraction of the crackpots and conspiracy theorists on twitter would have had the wherewithall to start their own newspapers, though. The barrier to mass communication is so much lower than it was in the 18th century.

Actually your portrayal is not that far off from history.

The Boston Massacre was greatly exaggerated, really only five rioters were killed and arguably the British shot them after violent provocation. Paul Revere's engraving was fiction and portrayed them as murdering the colonists in cold blood, which planted the seeds of the American Revolution.

As far as the barrier to mass communication being lower, perhaps, but mass communication was more prominent in the 18th century than you might think. Pamphlets were fairly inexpensive easily duplicated short-form propaganda, and were read aloud in taverns and churches. Communication wasn't "instant" but it was possible, and the social aspects would have made it more like Twitter and Facebook than I think we'd like to admit.

Yes, I'm aware of that. There was plenty of nonsense and propaganda printed, but I don't think it's possible to deny that twitter gives more people a bigger platform than pamphlets ever did. Otherwise why are people even using twitter instead of printing pamphlets?

> We must decide if that needs to change.

This will require either amending the constitution to strip companies of their 1A rights, OR the supreme court ruling that companies are not people and have no 1A rights. Both are tall orders in my view, with far-reaching direct and 2nd-order effects.

Not necessarily. The phone company can't cut you off for what you said on the phone.

> supreme court ruling that companies are not people

Wait, in the US companies are considered people?

I was channeling Mitt Romney ("Corporations are people, my friend"[1]). But companies, trusts, PACs, SuperPACs, country clubs, HOA's, etc are legal persons. The supreme court ruled all persons (birthed or incorporated) have free speech rights, and additionally, money is free speech[2].

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-cor...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

No, but they are collections of people and as such have certain rights.

Banning someone from twitter is still not mass censorship though. The ideas can still be passed around just fine over snail mail

This is true with regards to the Constitution and the 1st amendment. That said, the US has a strong ethos around freedom of speech that goes beyond just gov't intrusion.

Is big tech within their right to censor how they see fit? Yes.

Is it antithetical to the American ethos? Probably.

One would expect american companies upholding values of its country which enabled them to prosper. None of them would exist today if free speech was not possible when they started.

I think that private entities being able to limit the speech that is performed on their property is an expression of their own free speech, and should be protected by the right that protects that speech from intrusion by the government.

I also think that us being forced to rely on private platforms for public discourse is a grave threat to democracy. There must be public forums that are strong enough to be viable and legitimate places for the majority of public political discourse to take place without relying on private institutions.

It's an "expression of their own free speech" that - thanks to Section 230 - comes without any of the restrictions or liability that would apply if it was actually their own speech. They're very much getting to have their cake and eat it here.

Then they have a baseless false expectation.

Speech in the US has always had limits, the idea that America has pushed for completely unlimited free speech is not true, and incitement and false statements of fact are some of the cornerstone cases in which speech loses its protection under the 1st Amendment[0].

Speech has never been, and will never be, completely protected without exceptions in the US.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

You are comparing the choices of an individual to those of the app distribution mechanisms which are nearly-universal.

It's true that you _can_ find Parler out of those app stores, but a significant fraction of people would not be able to do so; nor would people encounter Parler as a popular app they might consider installing.

(The web hosting is a different issue since there are a bunch of hosting options.)

>free-market-participant

We're talking about the situation in the United States, not a free market. If there were viable alternatives, nobody would care about being blocked from Twitter or Google or Facebook. The fact that these monopolies collude in their censorship campaign makes the impact that much more severe. The situation with these monopolies colluding to block an aspiring competitor is clearly an anti-trust issue.

The greatest delusion free-market proponents seem to have is that there will always be a "viable alternative" in a free market. And that there will be no monopolies.

There's literally no reason for a "viable alternative" to not appear. I mean, Parler is a "viable alternative" to Twitter, isn't it? It got kicked off AWS? Go ahead, and create your own viable alternative, there's literally nothing stopping you, just like in a "free market".

You don’t need to create your own alternative to AWS. There are a large number of cloud infrastructure and hosting providers around the world. And multiple competitors to AWS in the US alone.

Yeah, there are three large ones in US: AWS, Azure and GCP.

And considering that Google banned the app GCP is also out of the question.

BTW. You know that the largest cloud provides in the world are also the ones I mentioned above? There is only Alibaba Cloud that is outside US and all the rest are just small businesses (that might just resell what the big three is providing).

And what would be next? Let's block the "new Parler" on the DNS or routing level - build yourself a new internet?

I hate far right wing and also hate far left wing, but I will protect both right to speak.

You don't need a cloud provider to host a website, and there are cloud providers outside of AWS, Azure and GCP. Oracle, IBM, and probably still hundreds of shared hosting providers. At the end of the day you can also setup bare metal servers with your own fiber connection. It might be a little extra work/cost but to describe AWS, Azure, and GCP as the only ways to host a website is disingenuous.

1) Oracle also provides Cloud infrastructure. And Larry Ellison has hosted fundraisers for Donald Trump. Perhaps Parler should talk to Oracle.

2) Smaller providers like Digital Ocean are in fact not reselling the larger services, but you’re right that folks like Heroku are based on AWS.

3) They all have the right to speak. But private enterprises also have the right to decide for themselves if they want to do business with them. That too is a freedom of expression. It’s unclear to me why you think the far left or far rights freedom should supersede the moderates freedoms.

I think the next argument that you’re going to make is well these tech companies are monopolies and therefore the government needs to regulate them in a way that ensures they are platforms for even the extreme left and right to speak.

But they aren’t monopolies. AWS, Azure, GCP, Oracle, Digital Ocean.

Sure, there are only a handful of news networks in the US, just like there are only a handful of cloud infrastructure providers. But the first amendment doesn’t guarantee that everyone gets their own hour on the nightly news, and it doesn’t force private corporations in general to do business with all comers.

I don’t have to invite QAnon into my house, and I certainly don’t need to bake QAnon a wedding cake. And neither do AWS, Azure or Digital Ocean.

> I don’t have to invite QAnon into my house, and I certainly don’t need to bake QAnon a wedding cake. And neither do AWS, Azure or Digital Ocean.

OK, but first you don't know if it is QAnon and second, are you also allowed not to bake wedding cake for a black couple, or maybe for Jewish one?

It is your freedom, right? So where is the line you can't cross? For me it is: if you open business you have to deal with everyone, sorry. If you don't like it, don't open a business.

You just need to follow the law, if courts say that "you can't sell wedding cakes to QAnon" you follow that, but until there is such law...

It's all the way up to the banks though, Visa and Mastercard are deplatforming people too.

Only if there is collusion opposed to simultaneous independent consideration.

> The fact that these monopolies collude in their censorship campaign

Can you explain what you mean here? I wasn’t aware that tech companies worked with one another when choosing who or what to ban.

Not OP. I don't think they "collude" in the traditional sense.

But every time one of the entities takes some decision or step or action, whether censorship or otherwise, it makes it a little bit more excusable and easier for others to do it and justify it.

E.g. (hypothetical)

1. Reddit bans /r/ABC for "TOS violations".

2. It's news and many reporters report on it across various articles. Some say it's due to "repeated" "alleged" "hate speech" violations, whether true or not. Probably 50% true, who knows.

3. ABC makes its own website and has a mailing list from some mail newsletter provider X because that's just what you do when you have a site and need to keep in touch with visitors/members.

4. Activists on Twitter notice. Outrage mob starts. "@X mail provider hosting known hate-speech movement" "@X mail provider...did you know you're hosting known white supremacists?" "Everybody, please stop using @X, they're supporting white supremacists!" "@AWS please look into what @X is using your infrastructure for!" ...all citing some selective articles as legitimacy.

5. Articles get written about a "movement" to have X drop service for controversial and "alleged" hate-speech website ABC.

6. X mail provider gets pressured and eventually drops service to ABC.

At this point, X mail provider probably won't get many "legitimate", "official" and "mainstream" criticisms for effectively dropping customers (even if all the mail sent by those customers on X's platform is 100% legal and innocent). Nor can their shareholders complain about losing profit because "we can't be seen supporting racists".

The problem is that each time this sort of thing happens, it adds "partial proof" of the accusations without an actual "court-like" process that decides if it's really true or not. After a certain point, it's just accepted and then carries an aura of truth/legitimacy.

Edit. Formatting.

I’ll give you a concrete example. I used to enjoy a popular anti-Obesity subreddit. People in it were impolite, but it was never worse than old-fashioned “your momma is so fat” type of humor.

It was banned from Reddit for being “hate speech” and in fact you can no longer suggest that obesity is something to be ashamed of —- on nearly any platform! Including GitHub. (but you are allowed to mock mock cigarette smokers or meth tweakers).

Which subreddit are you referring to? Based on your description, it surely can't be /r/fatpeoplehate.

He's being purposefully disingenuous. It was banned for good reason, alongside racist subs like "CoonTown".

It literally had hate in the name.

This is a battle of the fundamental nature & limits of free speech vs. the fundamental nature & limits of private property.

Generally speaking, hate speech can be allowed free speech, but not advocacy or incitement of specific violent acts. As the platform owner, and absent additional guidance from courts or Congress, private companies have no choice but to make decisions about what can be done with their private property. No company that is not a "common carrier" is obligated to let their infrastructure be used for a specific purpose. If you don't like the choices they make, the root cause isn't with the companies, it's with the laws themselves.

There is a sort of slider here between speech & property. If you dislike companies controlling their platforms as they see fit & want the slider to move in favor of free speech, it moves against freedoms of private property.

Neither the convenience of a given format or the ignorance of an audience to format alternatives suggests there is legal or governmental interference. In short, your sadness at Google does not imply improper conduct alone.

The current generation not knowing how to communicate without social media does not imply or suggest that social media is necessary for communication. If a person believes their values and entitlements limited by private entities they find alternatives not facilitated by those private entities, as in alternatives to social media.

I'm not sure what you mean by my sadness at google. Could you elaborate?

I too agree that social media as a common medium probably does not, in itself, confer "common carrier" status on it. Even if many have been bought up by Facebook, there is still room for competitors to arise that provide alternative. This is not like ATT&T before its breakup where it was literally the only option. Heck, nothing stops someone from rolling their own stack on a local PC or local "cloud" and running their own social media service there, with mobile friendly sites that don't need an Android or Apple apps no need to rely on 3rd party cloud infrastructure. Then they would only be relying on the common-carrier ISP infrastructure that couldn't ban them for content. They aren't entitled to use the private infrastructure services or content distribution networks of other private organizations.

> only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing, deciding what is allowed or not allowed

Woah, what?! No, this is entirely antithetical to "freedom of speech". The government should absolutely NOT be determining what is and is not allowed speech.

> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control

The market will decide right? Companies are made up of individuals. Their customers are as well. The past 30 years is evidence of that.

The government does determine what is and isn't allowed speech. Libel is not allowed speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You can get in trouble inducing others to commit crimes. Etc.

Libel is not a crime, it is a tort. You may be sued by someone you defame, but no government entity or agent may imprison or fine you.

Wikipedia tells me there is such a thing as criminal libel, although it is rarely prosecuted. But that's beside the point IMO. I omitted that libel generally does not fall under criminal law because IMO the fact that the legal system can be used by private individuals to enforce libel laws makes them a government restriction on free speech.

Not in the US. Or maybe you could link a source you claim to have?

The government does not originate tort claims of libel. It is there to mediate disputes that citizens bring against each other. Because the next best thing is people committing acts of violence against each other.

Sure. Like I said, it's Wikipedia, so take it as you will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

The relevant section:

"Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libel liability is constitutional."

Again, this is really beside the point IMO, as I mentioned before. I only brought it up due to being an unreconstituted pedant, unable to help myself.

> The government does determine what is and isn't allowed speech

That's as hyperbolic as my omission is glaring. Yes, there are a few very narrow exceptions made.

I would say, though, that our 1st amendment rights are stronger today than ever.

The important point is that the government has the power to make those exceptions, and exercises that power. It's the difference between absolute free speech and the messy reality we have.

But the initial point was normative, not factual. Beyond narrowly defined limits, the government ought not to be able to police speech, and being democratically elected is not a sufficient check, as John Stuart Mill pointed out long ago.

I will add to that, I believe that in order for a democracy to properly function we need free speech, truly free speech that is. Democracy is not designed to allow the morally righteous side to win power, it is designed to allow the popular majority to win power regardless of what they believe in and the morality of their beliefs. In the U.S. we have a large majority of the public that believes in one thing and another that believe in something radically different and I don’t think we should silence either of them if we want to keep the U.S. truly democratic. The argument that Parlor incites violence is irrelevant in my opinion since violence in this case is the result of free speech which ultimately serves the greater purpose of having a democracy. We should be prepared for the fact that the majority believe in something different than us, even if that something is radically different from what we believe in, and we must accept that and let their voices be heard as well. If we cannot accept what other people are saying than we cannot say the U.S. is truly a democracy since the foundation of that are free speech without limitations.

I’ve been reflecting on this lately as well. 75M people voted for Trump just two months ago, and now he’s been deplatformed from the major social media networks, and the alternate network that some of his supporters were moving to is effectively shut down for weeks/months.

I think you’re right in that the health of a democracy is closely linked to the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.

I don’t know what effect these moves will have but I suspect it will not have the intended one.

These guys have been brainwashed for decades by Fox News, which always claimed the "I can lie about everything because free speech" defense. This is not about diversity of opinions anymore. Their side besieged key democratic institutions such as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Vice President, with the intention to overthrow the government and to kill democratically elected politicians.

This is not about diversity of opinions anymore. The people who did this need to be persecuted and receive lengthy jail sentences, whoever aided and abetted them needs to be sentenced, and there need to be real and actual consequences. Because if we don't do that, we only show that we are weak, and that you can storm the Capitol without any consequences. What is the lesson you think they will take from that? You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.

The people who are fanning the flames need their megaphones taken from them. If whole platforms exist for the purpose of encouraging hatred and sedition, these platforms need to be banned. It's not rocket science. Fucking ban Fox News. Block Breitbart. Or drown them in lawsuits and persecute them for every lie they tell. It's either that or fascism. You choose.

I am in complete agreement that there must be consequences for the Capitol riot.

> You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.

I don’t think it stops here. That’s sort of what I was getting at. Will censorship result in less violence or more violence? The assumption is that it turns the temperature down, but where is the precedent for that?

“Free Speech” - not just the technical definition but the culture of it - is a core American value. Having it suppressed so quickly and broadly may actually result in more violence.

I fear that we’re at the beginning of the American “Troubles”

You will appreciate this article then https://eand.co/they-werent-rioters-they-were-fascists-it-wa...

This article read like a self-parody. The obsession with what words to use. The instant reach for Nazism as the point of reference (Ezra Klein invoking the "Nuremberg defence"?) The conspiracy theories about The Narrative and The Media, all so strangely similar to the nutcases on the other side. The rage at the Establishment. The foaming-at-the-mouth tone. Dave Spart lives!

I will point out that you only talk about stylistic issues and do not actually address the central point of the article, which is that language matters ("terrorist" or "freedom fighter"?) and that the discourse using these words is influenced by it.

A discussion about freedom fighters is a different one than a discussion about terrorists, even though the people involved might have committed the exact same crime (shooting a bunch of people).

As such, designating the mob as American Patriots and the event itself as a "riot" or "insurrection" instead of as a "coup" is - indeed - important and very telling.

A defining feature of this era is that language doesn’t matter, starting with "fake news" in the summer of 2016. Riot/protest, fascist, coup - these terms and more have been co-opted and reflected back at the other side. Same words, different meaning in the opposing context.

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

Might the simpler explanation be that liberals tend to be measured in their criticisms of conservatives and perhaps that leads to sometimes underplaying things?

In that case do you also believe that those responsible for propagating news which sparked riots and looting across the country earlier in the year should also be prosecuted? It seems like both sides have incited violence this year yet from your response it seems like you would only like one side to be punished.

> the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.

This is the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerant violent, discriminating voices like say, the Proud Boys, that intimidates other diverse groups from participating. Their intolerance becomes mainstream, making society less tolerant over time.

This isn't a problem, it's a feature. You seem to be in a scarcity, learned helplessness mindset: if you're worried about being dependant on companies that you don't believe or trust will govern well then the solution is simple, start your own company so you're the governor; so long as the internet as a platform stays relatively neutral you can do that. If you don't think this is an option, please explain why.

Parler is the right starting their own company in response to Twitter censoring/banning some of their discussions. Parler's current deplatforming indicates that "start your own company so you're the governor" is a borderline unrealistic point of view, since the internet and especially mobile phones are run by mega-corporations that don't support an open platform.

If we look at Parler being dependent on other companies, there are 3 dependencies that bit them in the last few days:

(A) running servers on AWS

(B) distributing Android app through Google Play Store

(C) distributing iPhone app through Apple Store

Parler could and should have avoided the dependency on AWS by hosting with a company more aligned with their views or outside of the US.

However, I cannot in good faith say "Parler should have written their own mobile OS if they want people to use their platform from their phones". I believe Android supports app installation without Google Play. It's a little inconvenient, but I think an extra minute or two of clicking around is an ok price to pay for access to unpopular speech.

However, as far as I know there's no way to have an app on iPhones without Apple's approval. This is a strong point for "even if you start your own company, you're not the governor - 45% of America's phone users can only access your service at the mercy of Apple".

It's not unrealistic. This is the point and value of having competition. If at each layer of the system they won't stand for your beliefs that violence is okay, for example, then you'll have to create the infrastructure at each layer if you meet resistance at each layer. If they're serious enough and organized enough and the rest of society isn't willing to budge, and if the "offenders" aren't willing to reason and adapt their ways to not be violent - and to have open critical thinking dialogue, if they can be un-brainwashed from Trump et al's lies and the lies perpetuated by the duopoly - both sides harmful but the treasonous Republicans (that's not all of them) who are willing to incite violence is obviously the worst of the two - then friction and physical conflict will occur. This will either turn into a civil war, where both sides will need to create the infrastructure including arms and readying defense, or if these people can be reached and government policy be put in place to break apart the duopoly, re-enact things like the Fairness Doctrine so news legally must present both sides of the story to their viewers, along with the core policy proposals of Andrew Yang - Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, etc - then the quality of life of everyone will improve, stress will go down, and dialogue and conversation will become more nuanced and diverse again, not merely the echo chambers of the two narratives of the duopoly that's been captured by industrial complexes and bad actors for many decades extracting as much from society as they can, suffocating everyone slowly but surely.

If you want the convenience afforded by the technology of private companies then you will have to follow their rules; if you show that you're racist while a guest in my house, I'm going to ask you to leave and if you refuse I'm going to call the police to have you removed.

Android does allow side-loading of apps, and Apple has the ability to prevent already installed apps from working. I think ultimately this is a question of whether you want your opponents/"enemies" - those who aren't aligned with you - to have access to the same level of technology as you: is it a good idea to level the playing field or to have an advantage? Arguably it's only good if the owners/controllers of that technology are on a more right/good path than the "other."

I assume in part Parler expected or wanted this deplatforming to happen as free marketing and to rally individuals to the platform, rallying the energy of people feeling persecuted - because enough of them were openly calling for violence and moderators weren't removing those comments/users from the platforms - but they don't seem to be having that sane/reasonable conversation to calm and quell the angry mob - and any "outsider" who attempts to reason with them gets ban/blocked, so it's inevitable it will spillover into the physical world. I feel and think it's good to slow this mob down however possible, even if it angers some of them more - they were already substantial open calls for violence, so it's not like deplatforming was the cause, the cause is Trump et al's lies and propaganda to incite violence; where's Trump ingenuine call for "law and order" after the Capitol was stormed? Answer: Trump told people to go to the Capitol.

I don't think it is very likely I'll be able to build my own mobile phone to replace Apple, who have banned Parler. Network effects and natural monopolies are real things.

Competition and organizing individuals is also a real thing, arguably there are ~74 million Americans who voted for Trump - which is arguably a large enough market size to cater a product to, which is exactly what Parler has done under the guise of a "free speech" app - which it's not:

'Stop calling it a “free speech app”. Historically Parler is harsher on dissenting political views than any of their competitors. Just, ya know, against the “other side”.' - https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/kts86k/comment/gi...

There's so much learned helplessness, victim mindset- and a sign of an unhealthy, non-critical thinking, more unreasonable population.

Even if Trump voters all supported the riots - the majority don't - they aren't going to buy a new mobile phone just so as to install Parler on it.

It's not an option, because of the banking, which is a gray area. It's privately owned, but it's not really a free market either. The problem is that Visa and Mastercard is blacklisting people, just because the angry mob complained on the internet. The social media is just a tip of the iceberg.

There's an entire ecosystem of decentralized money that has been invented and has been growing for the last 13 years to combat precisely this problem. The value of the units of those currencies are exploding right now, in part for this reason.

If this seems to you to be one of the deepest root causes of the problem, that people can't compete due to centralized monetary control systems, and you want to help make the world better by uprooting that critical power, you may consider digging deeper into these projects.

So to be clear - you want to allow people who are openly calling for violence to be able to transfer money freely via Bitcoin et al? This question usually gets ignored, avoided, because pro-Bitcoiners don't want to be accountable to the consequences of such system - likewise with fiat currencies and the current system you can have mechanisms like the Magnitsky Act to try to dissuade known bad actors via economic means before it reaches physical violence.

So to be more clear - you're okay with removing this layer of protection? And yes, it could be abused but then that's where actual work and getting in place an intelligent and accountable government with sound policy is the path, not taking down walls so to make it easier for bad actors to function within the system; not caring about it, concerning yourself with it, and externalizing the cost of the purposeful ignorance is a very bad idea.

"Bitcoin is almost as bs as fiat money" - Elon Musk, I look forward to Elon eventually voicing his full thoughts on this and not just his summization; he of course has to be careful due to the growing "army of HODLers" who are all financially aligned, all financially incentivized to promote Bitcoin et al to increase their value in the decentralized, global Ponzi-Pyramid. There are issues in the system, they can be course corrected by educating people on the right policies, Bitcoin et al is certainly the impetus for this to occur.

Yes, I very much do. And I want it to be recorded right out in public, on a bright, shiny public blockchain where everybody can see it, recognize them for the violent crazies they are, and dissociate from them.

If you are EXTREMELY knowledgeable and careful, you can transact with Bitcoin anonymously.

Less than 0.01% of the people who make a bunch of noise on Twitter or who stormed the Capitol are going to know how to be able to figure it out correctly.

Do you appreciate the vulnerability of the other stance? As in, do you know how absurdly lucky it is that people with a controlling stake in these payment processing companies happen to agree with you and aren't in Trump's pocket?

Imagine it were the other way around, and suddenly Twitter and Facebook just couldn't use banks anymore, or cards.

Centralized control of money is too dangerous for everyone. Whatever power exists could someday be wielded against you.

Why do you think the rioters are so afraid and angry? They were fine with Trump's making up executive powers that don't actually exist anywhere. Now they're seeing the other edge of the sword, and they're so afraid they're losing their minds.

Learn from them. Don't become like them when your view falls out of favor. Don't create a power so great your life would be ruined if your enemy came to wield it.

Indeed there are different layers and social media is just the tip, and that's a feature - and it's great because it's multiple barriers to entry; you don't want an angry mob who seeks violence to have fluidity.

Also, cash exists as a payment option - yes, it's slower than digital transactions which is also a feature to limit and slow allocation and in this case, slow the allocation to people wanting to allow open calls for violence. With enough support they could also create their own credit card company, if they can find a government who will be supportive of open calls to violence.

That's my point, the government. Banking is not a free market. So can we put this nonsense to sleep already? And since you don't seem to be too interested in the free market argument anyway, let me respond to the rest of your comment, including the other one.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but your falling empire, the almighty America, is not the only country in the world. The censorship tactics that are deployed right now on the half of the population of the country that famously has the most free speech in the world, will be used against the people in other countries too. The willingness of the corporations to work with authoritarian governments, the obvious example being China, is not exactly a secret. These people hold no moral convictions, they use slave labor for God's sake, just so you can mindlessly consume more useless crap like a new iPhone every year or God knows how many pairs of Nike shoes, as they pander to you with rainbow flags and raised fists.

People who are in the front lines against such governments, some of whom you might show "support" to regularly on your favourite social media website, are also being persecuted for the same reasons - calls for violence and terrorism. The people from my country were hailed as heroes after the WWII by the Western world. But today, in some places in the world, people who are doing the same thing and fighting for the same causes that we did are labeled as terrorists. People might belive one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. Which is whatever suits the people at the media industry and their employers at the time.

And the bottomline is that you yourself might find yourself on the receiving end of the things you think are so great in the near future. The following weeks are not about the left vs the right. Or antiterrorism vs terrorism. Or morality vs lack thereof. Or however you want to frame it to feel good about yourself. It's about escalation or de-escalation. The right completely lost and the left had the upperhand. But for some reason, either stupidity or on purpose, they've chose to go about it in the worst possible way. Get petty, overblow the Capitol shitshow and seek revenge on the right. You might not even agree with that framing, but this is how the right perceives it. And that means escalation. Nothing might happen because of it or everything might happen. But the point is that you've turned the victory of the left into an uncertain future, that no one knows what holds.

Sorry for getting carried away, I know this is not a place for my bullshit, but this is basically the only place where I can voice my meaningless opinions that no one cares about.

"... your falling empire, the almighty America" - I live in Canada, so technically part of America the continent, however I feel your skepticism or doubt relating to the current state of the US is a lack of understanding of the evolution process - even to the universal mechanism of yin-yang balance and cycle: yin is the state of stagnancy or being stagnant or slow moving, whereas yang is action and movement. The US has in fact been in a yin state due to regulatory capture of bad actors taking over and controlling systems, extracting value, for their own selfish reasons - and leaving less, distributing less for others. Policy wise the different complexes that have reenforced to allow this are easy to shift.

The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media; I hope you're aware of Andrew Yang and his core policy proposals which will do just that.

I'm mentally too tired to reply thoroughly to the rest of what you say, however you're right in that there is a beast on both sides of the duopoly that's integrated with mainstream media who will sensationalize - and stir up both sides however much they can for the sake of views and revenue. So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself - and one pro of social media is people like Yang who can share what they've learned and interact with others online without the gatekeeping of TV channels and newspapers, a relatively direct connection to people interest in tuning into your individual channel; 3 days ago he also stated: "For Cable News we should revive the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC had on the books until 1985 that required that you show both sides of a political issue. It was repealed by Reagan. If there was ever a time to bring it back it’s now." - the thread is here where he discusses this: https://twitter.com/JanPerry/status/1347211706162769921 - he begins by saying "There are 3 problems with our media that are fueling polarization: ..."

This is a perfectly fine place for your "bullshit" - you didn't name call, so you're all good in my books.

Is the yin-yang metaphor an intentional pun to Andrew Yang? That's clever, I like it. I'm not sure if I buy this esoteric explanation though. Right now we're back to neoliberalism and neoconservatism, assuming the sky won't fall on our heads tomorrow, so I don't see how that's any better. People got really emotional and their emotions will be once again used to grab even more power and push further policies that benefits everyone, except the people.

> The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media

If you'd listen to the right-libertarians, the conclusion they've reached is that if we would take capitalism without the government to it's full extent, it would be a very authoritarian system. They correctly predicted this tactics of deplatforming from every angle that we can see today, as a way of getting rid of undesirable people who would try to bring back the government. Ironically enough, they were wrong only in that it targeted them first, not the communists. I guess the second part addresses this, and what can I say to that, I wish I could be that optimistic.

> So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all in what I meant. By "the left" and "the right" I generally meant that the people in power on the left went after Trump supporters. It's showing my own biases there I guess in portraying it as the "elites vs people", but to my defense, I'd say it was at least accurately on topic of this thread. And surely there are already more than enough people to go after the right-wingers in power, so I'm sure it's fine. But I agree with you, Reps and right-leaning media are lying to their base just as much as Dems and left-leaning media are lying to their base, if that's what you're saying.

Hehe, yin-yang just happens to play well - whether coincidence, serendipity, or faith perhaps Andrew has Yang as a last name, as his policies will certainly lead to removing friction from the system while fuelling democracy, journalism, and people's lives to have UBI $ to spend - which will immediately increase the economy by ~12% - which will lead to further innovation; and the buying power of "$1,000"/month will increase exponentially as we automat more and more things.

Biden won, that's reason enough to reignite your optimism - even if it's just a little flame. Then stimulus-survival cheques will go to many that desperately need it. Then everyone will get vaccinated for COVID and things can begin to open up again. Yang is running for NYC Mayor - though not officially announced - he's registered to run + there's a video of him doing a Mayoral run announcement video. Yang, then if it makes sense, will run again in 2024 - "instead of that single $2,000 stimulus cheque - how much would it have helped if you got $1,000 every month?" Etc.

"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions." - Yup, though how much is perpetuated purposefully by Democrats vs. the narratives that mainstream media (or whoever else has influence on what they say) is unknown - but it happens. It's why social media is good because it allows people like Andrew Yang to have a voice - someone very articulate, very understanding of the problems, and has figured out the solutions which he's able to clearly explain. We need many more Andrew Yangs.

> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control.

Yes, but that’s already true without this action, which doesn’t make them any more or less democratically controlled. A more democratic way of deciding clear limits on free speech would be great, but the absence of one doesn’t mean the platforms should sit on their hands and do nothing while the world burns.

This is where it gets interesting - are you suggesting private companies shouldn’t be allowed to set terms of service(s)?

Would it be acceptable for the state to pass laws that severely limits private entities to do so?

There’s lot to think about here. Free speech is good and all, but is it not really about free speech in relation to the state? i.e you’ll not be thrown in jail or persecuted for saying things.

Btw, if you follow policy just a bit bellow the surface you’ll soon find that “we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control” since ways back.

Landlords and employers are already very restricted in what can be in their terms, so there is certainly precedent for it.

Yes, there are many laws dictating various businesses.

This is why it is interesting - it’s a question about regulation. State and law “interfering” with private company interests.

I like regulations on big companies in general, but this one would end up with weird effects, I reckon.

This is a straw man argument. We’re not discussing whether a private company should be allowed to have a TOS or control their TOS. We are discussing if a privately owned public communication platform used by the majority of a population should be able to control speech. Also at stake is if a large corporation should be able to have TOS that are anti competitive. (I.E. have TOS that in effect stifle competition)

The president could for example call to a press conference.

The internet is still rather open - parler could start a web site or give out a magazine.

The possible venues of free speech are numerous.

What?

They're just deciding they don't want to host their content on their servers. Which makes sense because some of their content is illegal. Amazon wouldn't host a message board for pedos eithers.

They are not. They are decided what is published on their platform and what not. Who can publish on their platform and who not. All limited to their respective platform. The term "allowed" in its generality can only refer to legal action, and that is reserved to the state. And I am sure there will be plenty of legal aftermath to the recent events too.

Having said that, it is indeed disturbing how large the actual power of those big companies is. As a society, we have to consider how this should be handled going forward.

Private companies have always done this. If you keep picking fights in a bar, you will be thrown out and banned. (In most places, anyway.)

If you keep plotting insurrection, violent murder, and the overthrow of democracy, you will also be banned. As you should be. Because if you aren't banned, any form of support - whether it's delivering pizza or web services - has the potential to make you an accessory.

Most TOS are pretty clear about the "no criminal acts" part. The baffling thing isn't why those rules exist, it's why right wing extremists particularly seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

> The problem here is that private companies are doing something that only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing, deciding what is allowed or not allowed.

So that I understand: on what grounds are such companies deciding what's allowed or not allowed for all people? As best as I can tell, they're deciding what's allowed or not allowed on their own platforms.

And a point I've made elsewhere but I'll repeat here: Parler might've exposed itself to FOSTA/SESTA by insisting on not moderating, and as such, while AAPL/AMZN/GOOG deplatformed Parler with violence as cause, it's also somewhat likely that gaining awareness of the lack of FOSTA/SESTA compliance may have forced their hand. (I'll invite an attorney to keep me honest here - I'm not one.)

I keep pointing this out because, of course, FOSTA/SESTA were passed in the last few years.

A private company is not a government. They should be allowed to make any lawful decision you or I disagree with.

By definition, a company is allowed to make a decision iff it is lawful.

actually, according to rand paul, they are doing what private companies should be doing and not what democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing.

As I understand him, private companies should decide for themselves who they serve and if we think they are behaving immorally, convince our circle not to give them business. It's not the government's job to say who they can and cannot serve.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-...

    PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

    INTERVIEWER: But?

    PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind. 

    INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?

    PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.

It's worth remembering that this principle was upheld by the Supreme Court a little over two years ago, in the case of a baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...

In this case, it was decided that the baker has a right to refuse service if they have a moral objection to the service they're being asked to provide. The same principle applies to Amazon, though one can certainly see how the scale and scope of Amazon's services and their centrality to the online economy makes things a bit more complicated.

If the companies do not do it themselves, the state will eventually start doing it. If they go too far, the state will eventually ban them from doing that.

Just the system working as intended I think?

Governments usually move slow and sometimes (most of the time) they can't react in time and they are after-the-fact legislations. It's NOT OK for companies to sit back and not attempt to stop that behavior. By doing nothing but continuing to do business with them they are essentially approving that behavior. Here's a tweet[1] with some screenshots of some of the type of conversations that are happening on Parler.

[1] https://twitter.com/BethLynch2020/status/1347987417052172306...

Communities have ostracized the fringe since the dawn of time. Further, I would argue that we specifically don’t want governments to be the arbiters of speech.

Publishers have always had discretion over what they publish or distribute. That has not changed.

> The problem here is that private companies are doing something that only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing

Companies are obligated to make the most possible money for their shareholders. Otherwise their shareholders withdraw investments and invest elsewhere. Deplatforming is a legal money making strategy (it might succeed or it might fail but the goal is to make money). To add more data, in Nov 2020 7 MM more “potential customers” voted for Biden compared to Trump. Additionally, the “potential customers” that voted for Biden were predominantly younger i.e. more time to purchase good and services from company X. It seems clear to me deplatforming is a medium-term and long-term financial numbers game.

> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control.

The way I see this is:

Historically we thought free market economics only applied to the monetary aspect of socio-economics. “deplatforming”/“cancel culture” seems to be the free market “solution” to social issues. It is basically the “popular vote” weighted by capital, forcing social change by ostracism/“excommunication” (specifically limiting their ability to scale their speech, without excommunicating them from society - “soft excommunication”?).

Historically social issues were dictated by the church through “hard excommunication” fast and effective, but not fair to minorities. Since then we’ve tried to use a version of “one person one vote” and required government regulation, and moved very slow (for many reasons, one of them being a disproportionate voting power to low population states). Perhaps we are now witnessing the efficiency of the free market to solve social issues?

Which is an interesting/ironic result, given historic Republican policy about free markets.

P.S. FWIW, I’d be happy with more regulation in this area, even though the free market “solution” is in my favor. I hope we can soon live in a world that uses “one person one vote” for all societal decisions, that strategy seems most fair to me. However, whatever your politics might be, please understand: A true “one person one vote” does also mean that both the Senate and the Electoral College need to be rectified.