> It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country

> It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in. It doesn't matter what it started with. Companies change all the time. So what? It's private property, they could shut all the servers down and replace it with something completely different. Why should an owner be punished because he decides he doesn't want certain content on his website? That is principally un-American - the right to private property is equal, if not greater, than the right to freedom of speech. You can't force a printing press, or Reddit, to allow certain speech - because this, paradoxically, is also a violation of ITS free speech.