3 ms·

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting a private company should be forced to host content they don't want to? Should Fox News be forced to host Rachael Ma

• Reedx 6y ago
  No, none of that. This is different. Imagine a public town square. Would you want any company acting as the gatekeeper, deciding what speech is allowed or not in that setting? YouTube, Twitter and a few others are effectively the new town square. I don't think we want to end up in a position where a few corporations are dictating acceptable speech and open debate.
  • chillwaves 6y ago
    What about a private business is "public town square" and why doesn't it apply to Rachel Maddow being hosted by Fox News?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • leereeves 6y ago
      Even the Supreme Court has called social media "the modern public square". > what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square. The power to ban someone from social media is the power to cut them off from society. That's too much power for any private corporation to hold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina