The NYT can control what they print, and they are also responsible for what they print.

Twitter can control what it "prints", but is not responsible.

Those situations aren't the same. At all.

Historically, there were platforms (like newspapers) that had full control of what information they disseminated and had full responsibility for that information, and "common carrier" platforms (like the phone company) that did not control what information was disseminated and accordingly were not responsible for it.

Twitter and its brethren want the best of both worlds -- freedom to censor, but no responsibility.

They should have to choose one or the other.

> Twitter can control what it "prints", but is not responsible.

I agree that this is a problem that I wish was addressed, but honestly, I dont know what kind of overreaching, anti-freedom (/s kind of?) law would need to be passed. The reason it worked for news papers was they were printing news, and news has to be true (or at least not outright lies).

Twitter, Facebook, *chan, parlor, Truth social (is that actually a thing yet?) would all just say they dont print the news, and that every post is opinion.

Which even the NYT opinion pieces don't fall under the same editorial scrutiny as their news, and legally are completely separate.

> The NYT can control what they print, and they are also responsible for what they print.

Nonsense

You should look at the thingy called "Opinion", and what kind of disclaimer NYT put around it

Labeling it "opinion" does not protect you from being sued for libel, or for copyright infringement, or...

Someone is spouting nonsense here, but it isn't me.

Sure

you could sue person, much harder to sue newspaper

you could sue someone for a twit if you want to, nothing could stop you

Why can't they not be responsible and censor, how are these related?

Because power without responsibility is a recipe for abuse.

If they are responsible for the comments they'll censor more.

I think you'll find that both print media and online media have substantially similar protections for third-party content.

I think you'll find that online media is explicitly protected from being sued for defamatory or infringing content under the DMCA, as long as they take the material down.

No such protection exists for print media.

Print media cannot "take down" content, but does enjoy a similar immunity as regards third party content. You should probably educate yourself on the subject, it would save you from making silly arguments.

> Just like the NYT is not required to post every opinion piece that is submitted to them.

That worked when there were more than two platforms to post your opinions on.

You say that like there aren't hundreds of social media platforms out there now and like it isn't trivial for a technical person to set up your own social media service on some "bulletproof host" in Lithuania or Russia.

There isn't a dearth of social media. There are a couple of GIANT social media websites that have sprung up in the last 2 decades, but there are dozens of semi-popular niche-ier forums that cater to any rant you might want to leave.

This is complaining that you won't be able to get all the audience you want for a deranged mole people rant. It wasn't too long ago that there were only one or two TV channels in any one area - should the mole people rant have been a mandatory presence on those media as well?

We didn't even have those two platforms during most of my life.

Today there are more platforms to post your opinions on than ever before.

And very easy ways for people to create their own platforms/blogs with their own rules too, they almost certainly won't have the same reach as the larger platforms but it seems to be a common view that Facebook/Twitter/etc. owe people access to their platform and maximum potential audience for some reason. Personally I really don't understand how those espousing free speech principles are making arguments that seem to require other private individuals and companies to repeat/amplify speech they don't want to

> And very easy ways for people to create their own platforms/blogs with their own rules too, they almost certainly won't have the same reach as the larger platforms

That's the point. FB/Twitter are now public utility size and usefulness. Your blog, not so much.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that Facebook/Twitter/etc. are too large and have too much power for lobbying/influencing public discourse, although I think if anything making them a public utility would make that situation far worse as opposed to just breaking them up or something else to make the market more competitive

But also just because they are big platforms why does that give people a right to be on them? Is my speech less free because I have a smaller audience?

So this is all about, as another commenter said, complaining that you can't get the largest audience for your mole people rant. Facebook and Twitter are both very large social hubs, but they still get to pick what they publish. They are giving you the ability to publish anything you want until enough people (or the right people) complain about it.

It is democratized moderation. If your following is small enough to skirt the mods, then you can post what ever you want. If your following is huge and you post a bunch of lies about sewer mutants, or that the covid vaccine gives you rabies, or that Hillary Clinton is actually a space alien in cahoots with Planned Parenthood to subsist off the flesh of aborted 6 year olds, then YES, they will remove your posts, and potentially ban you for a period of time.

This literally happens to my aunt every few weeks. She gets a weeks long ban for basically reposting only Russian spam, gets her account back and does it again. It has never even been permanent.

Okay, but how is the situation worse than it was before FB and twitter existed?

The amount of eyeballs available today for even small sites is far greater than it used to be pre-facebook.

>If you somehow get it onto the platform, and they are made aware of it, they can unpublished it.

And that's called censorship.

You are absolutely correct. Do you remember when your parents would have some weird rule you didn't agree with, and their justification was "my house, my rules." This is basically the same thing. You don't have to follow the rules, but if you get caught breaking them, there could be some grounding and privileges taken away.

I do not get why people are under the impression that Twitter has to indulge their every tweet. They do not, will not, should not, and have not since the founding of the platform.

If you walk into a McDonalds and start selling your own hamburgers out of the bathroom unbeknownst to them, is it censorship when they finally discover the atrocity and have you removed? Is it stifling competition or free speech? Probably, but their house, their rules.