> 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 shou

> 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. I mean, yes, it's possible. It's also delusional and paranoid to think that you can't post your hate speech, anti-vaccine delusions, and whatnot on your own damn platform. We're entitled to free speech, but that's where it stops. We aren't entitled to free, global publishing platforms hosted at the expense of some other party. You might complain that Youtube or whatever other "public" platform is where all the eyeballs are, so it's not fair that you can't publish anything you like there. Guess what, the reason the eyeballs are there is because these places curated their content so they didn't get their advertisers driven away by hosting vile garbage. This allowed them to scale more, host more content, and scale more, in a virtuous cycle. There are sites that don't curate like this, and they're not successful publishing platforms. What do you need to publish that you can't get 8chan to host, anyway?