There are a tiiiiny number of companies that are controlling global communications, and that should make us all uncomfortable.
Being banned from one restaurant in town, should not mean you're banned from all restaurants in the world.
> Being banned from one restaurant in town, should not mean you're banned from all restaurants in the world.
So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve?
The problem with social media is that the big platforms, like the post office or your ISP often ends up as an natural monopoly that can be just as dangerous to your political freedoms as any out of control government department by virtue of being just as powerful in the real world.
To be clear, current US law protects things that one can not change about themselves eg: race --and even this is a bit of an oversimplification (see being gay or a woman)-- but it in no way prevents a restaurant from serving someone because of the attire they are wearing or the speech they are speaking.
I was referring to non-protected classes of people.
For example, I have the right to refuse to serve someone who has written bad checks at my establishment, for example.
Or I have the right to refuse service to someone who has caused harm to my clients.
Which leads back to my question: Should I be forced to serve these people?
> So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve?
Well, yes. Like a utility company.
It doesn't matter who is hooked up to the water/sewer/internet/etc., they get service. I think the platform/publisher debate needs to actually be had.
Right now Twitter/FB/etc. are acting like publishers (silencing some, ignoring others) rather than platforms. If they are going to take responsibility for what is on their platform, they need to take full responsibility (a publisher). Or, they need to take no responsibility, as far as that goes under the law (a platform, which I here conflate with utility).
As it stands, all of the major social media companies are biased to the US left, and they cater largely to the left [0][1]. When they silence, they silence the US political right. Or comments that are critical of the CCCP[2]. Or legitimate medical opinions about Covid-19[3].
[0] https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/conservative-and-independ...
[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/social-media-companie...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/youtube-auto-del...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-facebook-spli...
It's not as crazy an idea as it sounds. You may already be forced to. You cannot not serve people based on a protected characteristic.
For example, I have the right to refuse to serve someone who has written bad checks at my establishment, for example.
Or I have the right to refuse service to someone who has caused harm to my clients.
Probably because the point you're trying to make here is 1) nitpicking a detail of a hypothetical example which wasn't particularly relevant to the discussion, and 2) the "but it's not always a symbol of hate" argument is a rather common neo-Nazi talking point.
I don't think that quite describes the situation. Those with no money often have no recourse against Google, Facebook or CNN. But those with money whether individuals or corporation (even outside the media world), have many ways of shaping opinion, whether that shaping is public relations, SEO, media-creation or legal action.
Just during the time that Facebook has attempted to spread the standard, cautiously wide mainstream view of covid and the shutdown through their information center, I've received an ocean of polarizing false-claims about Covid and the shutdown through sponsored ads. Those ads cost money and they certainly show how today, money, any money, has a voice.
