Right now, it feels like companies like Google are mostly silencing hate speech, violent extremists, and pornography, but there is no guarantee that their censorship will remain that way in the future. In a not-so-hypothetical future where a single private company has taken almost whole control over online media and starts imposing heavy censorship over non-offensive speech, are we going to continue saying "it's a private company, and if you don't like it, you can just share your opinions on this platform that nobody reads"?
I like diverse viewpoints being allowed. It is unacceptable, however, to be so entitled as to try to force companies not to censor whatever they feel like.
What about forcing companies to offer housing to people they do or don't like?
And what about offering loans? Should companies be forced to offer loans to people, even if they don't want to?
If, by regulating the way people do business, we can increase total freedom in the world, I think that it's a worthwhile exchange. The way we do business is already regulated, and is one of the powers that we explicitly grant the government in the constitution.
The way I see it, forcing social platforms to accept free speech is really just a commercial regulation, and not a speech regulation. After all, we all understand that this post doesn't reflect the opinions of YC, and thus forcing YC to accept this post doesn't restrict anyone's freedom of speech.
This is like saying if you don't like the debate happening in your city hall or town square, go to the small gathering in the woods to have your conversations.. where no one will hear you, and what you say will have no impact.
I know this the analogy is flawed because there is no "public space" on the Internet.. The places we have chosen to hold our public discourse online are all privately owned..
It's a challenging problem and "go somewhere else" is not a viable solution because it marginalizes and suppresses unpopular opinions or minority groups..
