When you hear something outrageous on FOX or CNN, you yell "bullshit" at the TV. When you read the same thing on Facebook and see 20 of your friends positively interacting with the news story and showing their approval, you remain quiet at best, join the lunacy at worst. What you don't see is the three shadowbanned accounts explaining why it's lunacy.

If the last decade has taught us anything, it is that a lot of people will not "yell bullshit at the TV".

Most people will read a room and refrain from sharing politically-unpopular opinions that invite public and private retribution from a deranged mob.

Silence is not implied agreement. What the internet masses say is popular and what people actually vote for are two very different things.

They obviously just change the news network until they get the bullshit they prefer.

How much traction could a lawsuit against Reddit, Twitter, etc. have against the practice of banning or shadowbanning?

If a user could show good faith participation, could they claim they've been prohibited from exercising freedom of expression in a public forum?

Suppose someone was banned from a subreddit for their particular hobby or, worse, city or region. This might be the single biggest forum for that person to address their neighbors and peers, and banning could prohibit their ability to find work, housing, opportunities, etc.

Moderators often ban users on a whim. Sometimes they ban users for merely commenting on other items or subreddits that they deem "wrong", and this practice is often automated.

If you can't sue Reddit, could you sue the moderators?

Are you talking about the First Amendment?

Yes. How close are these platforms to being de facto public squares?

If you're banned from /r/sanfrancisco etc., what do you do? Your voice and ability to participate in the community has been blinded and muffled.

Reddit and Twitter are bigger than Reddit and Twitter. If you're banned, you have less of an ability to participate in modern life. Events, jobs, commentary, and more are gone. There is no alternative, because platforms Hoover up as much as they possibly can.

Ideally these platforms would be protocols, but in the meantime the common carriers that operate them should be held to preserving accessibility.

Moderation isn't easy. It should probably be an order of magnitude more expensive than it already is so that safeguards against "personhood erasure" can be put in place.

You don't want racists, trolls, and bigots spouting hate speech, but you also need to keep the lines open for when these individuals are behaving. Because the pendulum swings and sometimes you find yourself on the other side of the censorship zeitgeist.

Perfectly salient thoughts and people can be memory holed. And that's not just a possibility - it's happening right now.

I'm interested in participating in a class action suit. They are a public forum.

One of many reasons why shadowbanning is bad and outdated practice.

There is a famous psychological experiment done by Solomon Asch (Asch Conformity) that demonstrates this behavior.

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

As if that's relevant or excuses this behavior.

> If Fox News had a DNA test, it would trace its origins to the Nixon administration. In 1970, political consultant Roger Ailes and other Nixon aides came up with a plan to create a new TV network that would circumvent existing media and provide "pro-administration" coverage to millions. "People are lazy," the aides explained in a memo. "With television you just sit — watch — listen. The thinking is done for you." Nixon embraced the idea, saying he and his supporters needed "our own news" from a network that would lead "a brutal, vicious attack on the opposition."

https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created

But they're domestic companies whose staff members, all the way up to the owners and CEOs, are not under threat of disappearance by the totalitarian regime of a hostile state...

Are you suggesting that FOX and CNN are good things? If it's possible, I'd say we should ban anything working in this way.

Yeah totally possible. We’re deciding this right here on this thread.

They're all doing it. Big tech, social media, left/right.

There is no left in the US

_rolling eyes emoji_

Yes, as has been pointed out countless times, the US left would be considered further right than the Nazi party to all you enlightened Europeans. We know, we get it. Doesn’t change the fact that there is something called left wing politics in the US, and it’s considerably different from right wing politics in the US.

There is nothing called left wing politics in the US. Just people with their heads so far up their own as they don't realize how far right the US is.

Whataboutism

FOX and CNN are at least held to a higher standard. We need to apply those same standards to the internet.

If they tell an outrageous lie on CNN they can be sued.