What you are asking for is a new law. There is nothing wrong with that! Just important to understand that the FTC and the courts don’t make laws. They only work with the existing laws. If you want new laws the legislature is the proper place to ask for it.

There is an other problem. What you are asking for is probably going to have issues with the first amendment. This might sound weird, and you probably will feel something is off about it but as it is most often interpreted Twitter or Alphabet censoring stuff on their own platform is their right to free speech. If there would be a law like what you are asking for that would constrain their right to free speech. As you can guess it becomes complicated from there.

There's been discussion of applying Common Carrier protections and limitations to ISPs, why not to places that host public discourse?

I agree though, a new set of laws that govern online spaces is probably needed (despite my trepidation of the current crop of legislators and their general/basic understanding of tech).

The "why not" would be because in some cases the outcome is worse. I agree that ISPs should be common carriers. I disagree that social media sites should be. To me this is analogous to "everyone should be allowed to travel on public property, not everyone should be allowed in my bar".

The FTC enforces anti-competitive practices. Is that not clearly anticompetitive as of now?

Not under the Clayton Antitrust Act, no.

If you want to make the case, you have to make the case that it’s within the FTC’s wheelhouse under the statutes it is authorized to enforce. It might be anticompetitive, but if it’s not anticompetitive in a way that’s also illegal, then it’s outside the FTC’s jurisdiction. They can try it anyway under some novel legal theory or reading of the statute, but without being able to make a good case they would just be wasting everyone’s time including their own.

That's not how freedom of speech works at all. These are not publicly funded platforms. They are businesses and as such need to censor speech in order to maintain relationships with businesses. Twitter is a great example. They start to loosen up on the hate speech and advertisers flee while simultaneously clamping down on anti government speech. I do not support free speech absolutism for private businesses because of this. It just doesn't make good business sense.

Multiple people saying the same thing so I guess I'll reply to yours.

However these are communications platforms. So is it clear that if AT&T wanted it could say I cannot talk about my silly hats only club, they could intervene to block my communications?

Or if my landlord felt I shouldn't have a specific sign (not signs in general), or even to just say words they dont agree with, they could bar that from their property?

Or if I wanted to wear a democrat colored pair of shorts to a (business owned) pool they could bar that dress code?

These are all business contexts in which I'm using the business owners property as a customer/consumer and hypothetically being barred from an action. I dont see how it's so different for communications platforms like Reddit/FB/YT

Perhaps America is far less free than I realized.

Or the facts of every circumstance matters a lot more in how the law is applied than you are willing to give it credit for.

A telecoms company like AT&T is subject to common carrier provisions and regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act of 1934.

If a landlord wanted to prevent you from putting up signs on the property, they probably can put that in the lease agreement but their free speech interests and property interests while still dominant are compromised to an extent as well by having rented the property out to you, but not to the extent that your free speech and property interests (like your personal property) are entirely compromised either. Their ability to evict is dependent on jurisdiction, but such a case would likely turn a lot on the facts depending on the jurisdiction.

Dress codes however can be arbitrary. You can be excluded from a club because the owner doesn’t like your shoes, and yes, that’s legal. Their property interest in this case entirely trumps your free speech interest. Having strong property rights is in part why we are a free nation, but sometimes when there are clashing interests, someone’s interests are going to win out and 9/10 it will be in favor of the property owner’s interest.

> AT&T

Kind of fuzzy. Iirc, land lines no, cell phones yes, Internet yes.

> landlord

Probably extremely specific to state/county/town

> democrat shorts

Political affiliation is only a protected class in an extremely small number of areas, so most likely, yes

Doing so would impugn the free speech and property interests of the server owners.

Why does Reddit have to host speech that it doesn’t want to? Why does anybody? Why is their right to exclude subject to limitations on the government of the United States when they are a private corporation? If the FTC wants to bring that suit, they can try, but that’s a lot to prove and I don’t think they’ll be able to count to 1, let alone 5 if they somehow make their case all the way to SCOTUS.

> Why does [should] Reddit have to host speech that it doesn’t want to?

For the same reason that landlords have to continue housing people doing things that the landlord disagrees with. Because they took what was their private dwelling, offered it to the public as housing, and invited in a new party that has their own rights.

I don't really have a dog in the "deplatforming" fight, because I think the sooner we move to decentralized protocols the better. It's just utterly disingenuous to pretend that corporate property deliberately employed to perform services for customers is exactly the same as individually owned private property.

The right to exclude is the same in both instances but the facts of each individual case matter. In the case of a landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord’s rights are still dominant but the tenant also has rights which compromise the landlord’s rights to a certain extent by a contract agreed to by both parties. Some jurisdictions may also have additional tenants rights enshrined in law, but generally speaking, if a landlord wants to evict, he is going to be able to evict. If you buy a house you intend to move into from someone who has rented the property out, barring some contractual reason you can’t that would be disclosed in the purchasing process, you’re going to be able to evict that family and move in once you own the house.

Social media companies don’t lose their right to exclude by having allowed you to sign up and use their services. They can still exclude you (read: ban you) pretty much at-will subject to their terms of service (so pretty much always at-will) and it’s not disingenuous to point out that yes, this is in fact their right as the owners and operators of the service.

Other service providers the facts may be different. If you have a contract with a service provider, you have a lot more in your favor under a negotiated agreement than the people that clicked “I Agree” the last time a social media company changed their TOS.

In the long term, a landlord can always take back possession from a tenant, sure. But in the short term, there are many ways tenants can retain possession of their home in spite of landlord wishes, backed up by valid public policy interests in having the financial details of people's homes not result in the elimination of people's rights.

You're talking about what is currently, I'm talking about the philosophical foundations of what could be. Analogous reasoning could be applied to SaaS (Software Augmented with Arbitrary Surveillance). Even if we were to consider individual private property sacrosanct, this doesn't need to extend to corporate property employed providing public-facing services.

Free speech is only protected from government censorship, not private party censorship.

Further, communications platforms are not public forums in the legal sense.

Unless, of course, you're advocating for the government to nationalize Twitter et al. That's a whole 'nother conversation.

Why is freedom of association not protected in the same manner? Private freedom of association was ended when the CRA was passed.

Are you referring to the Civil Rights Act? freedom of association is a construct made up by modern nation states and people.

It was never truly freedom. Classes, hierarchy, power, in the modern world order led by the US and western Europe. Fred Hampton was murdered by the racist capitalist government after the CRA passed. Before one can get to any sort of freedoms, one must not be killed by the same state bestowing such freedoms.

I think most people would not agree that "private freedom of association" has ended in the US. There are protected classes, you're not allowed to discriminate against someone for their existence as a member of a protected class, but there are definitely still plenty of ways in which I'm allowed to bar people as I see fit (in my locale, "no Biden/Trump supporters allowed" would be legal).

your proposals "censor the freedom of speech" of the organizations you want to control

I don't think it's legal issue so much as a violation of their own contract (and no, I don't think "we reserve the right to remove anything for any reason" is very binding. Just a CYA for if/when they DO actually break the law by removing content that could get them sued).

There's nothing saying you can't talk about other communities, and there is in fact an entire sub focused on "reddit alternatives" (guess the name). So for them to ban accounts for this without a clear change in rules violates that trust. But ofc coporate interests and trust are nearly parallel at this point.