4 ms·

> 1) Private entities must pay for speech they disagree with on their private platforms and in their private conferences even if that opposing speech causes the

> 1) Private entities must pay for speech they disagree with on their private platforms and in their private conferences even if that opposing speech causes them to lose the funding that allows for them to pay for it in the first place. Just thinking about your point (1), I'm not sure it is impossible, depending on the industry. Isn't it just the straightforward position for most companies that are considered common carriers - they can't discriminate?

jasode 10y ago
>Isn't it just the straightforward position for most companies that are considered common carriers - they can't discriminate? (For more about that won't work, see my previous comment I linked in the footnote.) It wouldn't make any sense for the government to forcefully reclassify a company like Facebook as a "common carrier"[1] like a telecommunications provider because FB is sponsored by advertisers. The ISPs (with subscribers) can be common carriers but not websites (with ad sponsors). A "common carrier" designation from the government doesn't come with a $20 billion payment to Facebook from the government (taxpayers) to make up for loss of advertisers pulling their ad dollars on platform that allows speech they don't like. Likewise, since "common carrier" doesn't mean users are forced keep their Facebook accounts and forced to read newsfeeds of opinions they disagree with, it doesn't solve the problem. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...