> This is actually a right-wing authoritarian stance: you're advocating that the government (or do you mean some other entity?) force private businesses to publ

> This is actually a right-wing authoritarian stance: you're advocating that the government (or do you mean some other entity?) force private businesses to publish speech that they disagree with. This is absolutely a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to say that having private corporations dictate what people see and read is bad for society, without claiming that the government should force companies to publish anything. Yes it the company's right to censor whatever content they want. It's possible to believe in that right while still saying it's wrong for companies to wield it in a certain manner. Much in the same way you can believe in the right to free speech of the Nazis that marched in Skokie while simultaneously calling their actions reprehensible, it is entirely valid to criticize the censorious actions of these platforms while acknowledging that this is well within their legal rights. The above poster acknowledged that private platforms are allowed to censor whatever they want. Repeatedly. I really don't see how your comment is productive, as all it's really doing is putting words in the above poster's mouth that [s]he explicitly denied. What redeeming value am I supposed to see in your comment? Apologies if this comes off as overly negative but it is very tiresome to keep seeing criticisms of tech companies' censorship met with, "It's entirely within their rights, you're the authoritarian one for advocating government-compelled speech." Doubly so when the previous comment not only didn't advocate government compelled speech of any sort, but repeatedly acknowledged that companies are legally entitled to ban whatever speech they want.