3 ms·
It's disingenuous to conflate a private entities exercising their rights to "refuse a problematic client service" with infringement of the constitutionally prot
by hootbootscoot 6y ago
It's disingenuous to conflate a private entities exercising their rights to "refuse a problematic client service" with infringement of the constitutionally protected free speech by a governmental entity.
- Thorentis 6y agoOh boy, another "private entities can do what they want" argument. What's the point in saying freedom of speech only applies in public places and protection from the government, and then turning around and handing over control of the biggest tool for sharing information (the Internet) to private companies? Sorry, but the "private companies can do what they want" argument is old and tired when it comes to censorship.
- Craighead 6y agoYour ISP, your phone carrier, your free saas platform you share misinformation on, the place you're posting this comment, these are all private companies. Private companies can do what they want when it comes to censorship, if you don't like it, then fix it, otherwise, you need to learn that this is how legal precedence works.
- 34679 6y agoAnyone who doubts this argument should also take a look at the increasing role of private companies to circumvent your 4th Amendment protections on behalf of your government. A limited set of examples: -License plate location databases -Cell location databases -Contact databases The 4th may prevent your local PD from gathering all that data on every citizen, but it doesn't stop them from buying it from private companies that collect it. This is a problem.