>Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech.

>fine trusted news organizations spreading misinformation

How do these two statements go together at all? The government fining news organizations for reporting what it decides is misinformation seems like a huge overreach even to me, and I'm more on the pro-censorship side.

I was originally thinking that if people were upset at corporations for all the damage they do in the thirst for profit, we could take free speech rights away from corporate entities and enshrine those same limits as rights for the people.

But I think you're right. That's ridiculous and results in less freedom, and we should strive for 100% free speech across the board.

The way to fix hate is to make sure everyone's rights are protected and strive to meet everyone's needs. Hate arises from fear and discomfort. It's not an easy problem to solve.

That boat has long sailed once Big Tech banned Parler and everyone cheered it. America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. Atleast in other democratic countries Censorship happens through the elected Government. As a citizen you can always remove the elected representatives if you don't like the Censorship implemented by your elected representatives for whatever reason. You can't remove/vote out Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon et all because of the powerful grasp they have over digital communications and media.

The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. Why would any Government trust American Government's word if a Private Company can undo it or act unilaterally without Congress approval? What does it convey to the World leaders? Is there 1 power center in America or 2? We used to mock Pakistan for having dual power centers (the elected Government and the military since their military doesn't come under the control of the elected Government). It caused a lot of confusion for World powers to interact with Pakistan as no one knew who the controller was. Was it the elected Government or the military? I'm seeing the same thing happening in America. Why should my Government take US Government seriously if a private company can ban/censor US Government communications?

Deleting a sitting US President's account is not going to be respected by any Government. Period.

> The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America.

That you think a private company being shunned by other private companies, is worse for free speech than a private company being banned by the government, shows you don't really understand the american definition of free speech.

I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for governments to flex their power and regulate anything and everything. This is common in third world countries and developing societies: edicts are the answer to everything. It is the language of dictators.

The US government can absolutely force Twitter and Facebook to do whatever it wants but it doesn't, instead it guarantees freedoms to enterprises and entrusts slow but deliberative bodies with the task of deciding when exceptions should be made. It creates courts and laws for companies to resolve disputes amongst themselves. These principles are upheld even at the government's own inconvenience.

I find that far more admirable than the hasty and impulsive exercises of power that characterize uncivilized authorities that aspire to rule instead of govern.

Freedom is not something natural.

In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it.

So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom.

US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restrict freedom of smaller entity is reducing freedom not increasing it.

That's why the US government also sets limits on what private companies and their customers can do to restrict each other's freedoms. Under these democratically deliberated laws, Parler has as much freedom to use Twitter & Facebook as you have freedom to do use my lawn. The principle still holds even if every neighbor in your neighborhood hates you and denies you access to their lawn; The scope & scale of their lawn restriction is irrelevant because American society finds their freedom over their property to be more important than your freedom to use it.

There are things that the US government deems too important to restrict, but Facebook & Twitter is well outside that category. That's where American society has drawn the line, and it's a line that I agree with as well.

The thing I wrote about freedom has nothing to do with US or Parler or Facebook.

It's a general observation that restraint of locally strongest entity doesn't necessarily give you more freedom. It can (and often does) give you less.

And when it comes to Parler my concern was Amazon, not Twitter and Facebook. Why should hosting provider be able to choose whom he provides basic infrastructure? Was Parler illegal content they had to remove by law? Should they cut their electricity and water supply to the creator of Parler too because they don't like their content?

The US government does draw the line at what it classifies to be utilities like electricity and water. AWS isn't considered a utility but I think it's far closer to one than the other companies. I'm personally skeptical that it should be because AWS encompasses a whole range of products, many of which have decent competition and aren't really "basic".

The ability to host stuff yourself on the internet is, however, a freedom I consider to be basic and necessary, so I do support net neutrality and related legislation that classify ISPs as utilities.

> exercises restraint on its immense natural power

I would have agreed with you provided it was the Government that had to do the banning first and took it's time and exercised restraint.

This is different. Big Tech cut off US Government communication lines from the rest of the World. Now we will never know what Trump is thinking except if he does a press conference. We will never know what the White House is doing. This causes major network effects across the World as people across the World want to know what is going on in the White House and what is on Trump's mind. Before internet and social media all communications were between the World leaders/bureaucrats and the rest of the World was pretty much oblivious to what was happening unless it became breaking news. Everything was opaque. That is not what I want to go back to. Trust me you don't want to wake up one day to learn your country is at War with another nation because everything was kept under wraps till the last minute. If you had known earlier you would have rallied the masses and built public pressure.

It is a public expectation to know what their leaders are upto. I want our leaders to be in the spotlight at all times. Trump is not just the President of USA, he is also a representative of USA to the rest of the World. Cutting off Trump's direct lines of communication cuts off feeds to the rest of the World about what is going on in his mind and the White House. This does not bode well for America as a responsible Democratic power. You do not cut off the lines to the Head of the Country with the World. No matter how much you disagree with him. This is irresponsible with Big Tech allowing it and US Congress keeping mum about it.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that Big Tech is even capable of cutting off US government communication lines. Twitter & Facebook is not the US government's communication lines. The government can and regularly does publish communications on its own internet infrastructure it controls and regulates. The government also maintains continuous contact with a global free press that breathlessly and rapidly reports on anything the government and Trump himself wants to say.

Let's not misrepresent what this actually is: a private enterprise locking a political leader out of one of many communication platforms that the leader prefers. Twitter & Facebook are not and have never been critical requirements for the US government (or Trump) to communicate effectively.

There were US presidents before Twitter, you know that right?

Trump was the one who chose to keep using Twitter as his main medium of communication. He has a LOT of dedicated presidential communication infrastructure available to him. He is choosing not to use it.

The only thing that reflects badly on the US is trump.

> A company doesn't enjoy free speech rights.

Actually, it does according to Citizens United v. FEC.

Trade sanctions are a different thing to sanctions imposed for speech.

I'm not american either but if I'm going to comment on the USA, I'm going to respect their own definitions and culture. Meanwhile you're trying to make a point you don't fully grasp yourself. Sorry.

True, though the bad light is not that some companies and groups in US are limiting Free Speech, but because US government has lost monopoly on violence, judging others and dealing punishment. All they key components that holds together any state - with or without Free Speech(which exists only few centuries or so).

We do not know with whom we have to deal with - US government that is represented by People - including ELECTED President, or Thing that is not controlled by law and does not need to abide to it and can do as it wishes - just like terrorists. Essentially at this point US does not exist - when the Thing, that will arise in place in US will start to abide to law and make agreements with others, then others will be more relaxed, but currently Democracy citadel of the whole World has ended. No one is going to take US as an example anymore and it would take a lot of work to gain that position where US once was and usually there is no way to climb back after such actions.

Not to mention what this all is causing to current World Order, where no one is going to seriously take US - all the doors that are now opened for all the shit to pour out.

Not being an American perhaps you should be even more concerned about what you say. This just doesn't change the US Governments view what what you've been up to, your government also will be taking a very dim view.

Parler banned Parler. They refused to take down material that was obviously detrimental to society. We would not put up with television stations planning to kidnap senators either. You don’t get to yell fire in a theatre. They were warned. They didn’t do anything. They banned themselves.

Why stop there? I'll add more to the list of Parler transgressions:

1. They live streamed NZ Mosque Shooter. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/444349-christchurch-shoote...

2. They helped ISIS in propagating terror material for 2 full years. They allowed ISIS to post beheading videos and threaten the then President of the United States Barack Obama. They even got sued for it but took protection behind Section 230: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-isis-lawsuit-idUS... and https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/20/technology/twitter-facebook... and https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/war-goe...

3. It was used to incite Genocide of an ethnic group causing mass migrations: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...

4. They were party to toppling of foreign Governments: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/can-social-networking-over...

5. They were used by foreign Governments to censor Citizens and Oppositon: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/16/it-exists-to-demobi...

> They banned themselves.

Oh yes they banned themselves. The proof I have given above validates your point. I am wrong, you are right! Congratulations!

Is your point that Facebook and Twitter are just as culpable as Parler but held to a different standard?

Exactly. Thanks for getting my point. Let us assume that the entire US Capitol plot was hatched in Parler. Even then that is just 1 transgression. Compare it to the history of social media enabling violence and that list runs into hundreds if not thousands (if you factor in the entire World). I haven't even covered threats of school shootings and other stuff that often gets overlooked.

When regime change happens in Middle Eastern countries Twitter was lauded for being a platform for voice of the oppressed. As long as it doesn't happen in America we should rejoice social media playing a pivotal role. The moment the same "Arab Spring" like situation strikes home all hell breaks loose.