As a society we are going to have to figure something out: if intellectual property has value, then content contributors are adding value. That means kicking th

As a society we are going to have to figure something out: if intellectual property has value, then content contributors are adding value. That means kicking them off is depriving them of the value of their labor. In the public sphere, we would say they are being deprived of property without due process. In the world of private companies, there is no such protection. For one thing, all the mechanisms we create to ensure due process, ability to appeal, know the charges against you, and seek redress... those cost time, effort, and money. Platform companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube/Google occupy an interesting space. They sometimes act like common carriers and most users implicitly assume the company doesn't meddle or play favorites. False. The companies can and do play favorites (who supplies the highest quality impressions? who has the best conversion rate? who pays back the most in ad dollars?) Contributors kind of just assume they have some property rights in the things they create. False. Contributors assume they have some means of redress when an unjust action occurs. False. The "sharecropping" analogy is apt, but even sharecroppers had better contracts than content creators today have! Historically, whole systems of government have been tried and replaced to work out fair and just (or at least acceptably unjust) systems. The European revolutions of the 1850's were largely about land use conflicts. Part of the French Revolution was about the conflict between renters and landowners.