> The first amendment protects against government censorship only - nothing Facebook does could infringe your first amendment rights.

This is true, but remember that there's a lot of terrible things that the Constitution doesn't prohibit, e.g., murder. The fact that something isn't Constitutionally prohibited doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law against it.

And what of Facebooks own rights? Why would your rights come before Facebook's rights?

I was making a very pedantic argument. It can simultaneously be true that Facebook is guilty of censorship, and they are in the legal / moral right by doing so. I have complex feelings on the topic, but that most accurately describes my position.

I'm not saying Facebook is infringing my rights (I explicitly meant to say the opposite). But I do feel strongly that they are guilty of censorship, in the literal sense.

> It can simultaneously be true that Facebook is guilty of censorship, and they are in the legal / moral right by doing so.

They might be in the legal right, sure. But you're never in the moral right if you're guilty of censorship.

If you think Facebook is supposed to have rights, then are you also okay with the Citizens United decision? The answer to whether companies should have the same rights as people should just be "yes" or "no", not "well, yes when it benefits me but no when it doesn't".

No, a business is not a person. At the same time, some rights of the individuals that own a business extend to the business. https://www.upcounsel.com/business-constitutional-rights

Using your same logic, should Starbucks be required to let you stand in their store and say racist things? What if the manager thought you said something racist and kicked you out when you didn't actually say anything racist, is Starbucks guilty of censorship?

Would you also defend Facebook's right to delete content related to Black Lives Matter, and argue that any discussion of such is a waste of time because they're a private corporation and can do what they want?

Facebook enjoys vast legal protections that (arguably) preclude them from this type of censorship. They are constantly fighting to make sure that (arguably) doesn't start to turn into something more concrete.

> What people really mean when they talk about censorship is first amendment rights.

I don't agree. The snarky and smug "nuh uh, cuz it wasn't the government" responses [often maliciously] assume that complaints about censorship are talking about the first amendment, but I think people are generally aware that censorship can come from corporations too and their concerns are not limited to apparent violations of the first amendment specifically but are concerned with the more general principle of free speech (which predates the first amendment.)

I’m curious what happens when a number of public speech monopolies align their interests with certain political group and implicitly blend with the government. I guess this theoretical situation is totally legal, doesn’t break any amendments, but it kind of smells strange.

And this is what is slowly happening