Because it's basically never been a thing there. Facebook, Twitter, Google - all of these platforms can and do remove things from their platforms for whatever reason they feel like. There's nothing we can do about it, there is no free speech there and acting indignant like they're eroding some right that you previously had is just pointless.

It'd be like complaining that you can't get sushi at McDonalds anymore. You couldn't ever do that, McDonalds haven't indicated that they would offer this and we all know it's not going to happen.

Maybe their network effect monopoly means that they are essentially a public service and maybe our basic concepts of free speech should apply to all public services.

I am obviously not talking about our current legal framework, but proposing the idea that the concepts and reason for free speech are meaningful enough to transcend that framework.

There's no "anymore" in these complaints though. There's just the complaint.

It's not "my parents started beating me while they in the past didn't", it's just "parents are beating me." Or "google is suppressing my speech."

Past actions of the involved entities do not invalidate the complaint. Likewise, "the grocery store next door doesn't sell sushi" is a legit complaint for the afflicted regardless of whether sushi was sold in the past or not. (Coincidentally, my go-to store just stopped selling sushi a week or two ago)

> But it's unfair to block a guy that talked about a real flaw in Grammarly's plagiarism checker, at least pretend that you allow free speech and take down that video for a random reason specified in your ToS.

See italicised section, it suggests there's a promise of free speech on Google that are somehow reneging on. I am just saying that this is a mistake, and now loads of people seem to be mad at the idea that I'm attacking "free speech". One of the reasons I thought it shouldn't be here is that it's fairly complex topic that IMO is orthogonal to the case in question because it raises all sorts of thorny side-issues that distract from the main thing: someone got booted from Google quite unfairly.

The (US) constitutional protections on speech constrain the actions of US governments; those constraints don't extend to private companies and individuals.

And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.

It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech -- even if the company has no legal obligation not to do it -- and therefore give them shit about it. As a customer. Who can take their business elsewhere.

And if the customer can't take their business elsewhere, it appears we have arrived at the underlying problem.

> It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech

You can call it a violation of rock and roll, if you like. Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.

> Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.

If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?

It's not the company's principle, it's the customer's. The company is violating it so the customer is offended and is willing to take their business elsewhere. And to publicly condemn the company over it so others do the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work.

If a company is charging 6000% margins, you don't say "well I guess there's no law against it," you stop patronizing that company. And if you can't, the market is broken.

> If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?

You make your point well.

However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is. That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".

I mean, I can set up whatever "principles" I like, and start accusing others of violating them. That's not like violating the terms of a law or agreement. It's a different use of the word "violate".

> However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Often summarized as "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff."

Kind of used it on purpose because vegans would want to apply it to animals and then there would be a debate about whether it should be etc., when that doesn't really matter here -- the vegan libertarian is perfectly entitled to consider factory farms a violation of the principle and use that to condemn them and refuse to patronize them.

> That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".

We're getting caught up on the semantics of the word "violate." Someone could just as easily accuse the company of not supporting free speech and end up in the same place.

The federal laws, much less the constitution, are the bare minimum in the USA. For example, most states have at least one statute saying companies can't fire employees over some forms of political speech.

So while your statement is true, it is not the discussion-stopper that most people seem to think it is.

Unregulated monopolies do not have to uphold constitutional rights.

The phone company used to be regulated so even if you were a hated Republican they still had to provide phone service to you if you lived in their service area. Those days are over and monopolies in practice will never be redefined again as "legal monopolies".