> Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force [...] Under current laws yes. But the comment you're replying to is proposing a change, presumably

> Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force [...] Under current laws yes. But the comment you're replying to is proposing a change, presumably to treat these huge platforms more like common carriers rather than publishers. I agree with them on private messages - the carrier should have no editorial control and no responsibility for what users say. Something like Facebook Messenger is conceptually far closer to texting (or even just sending letters) than it is to a newspaper publishing your article. And I don't think anyone legitimately considers it similar to choosing which products to stock. For public forums I think there's probably a better middle-ground. Possibly requiring transparency, like indication if a user's post has been edited or partially deleted by moderators, and explaining how posts are sorted/recommended/hidden. > If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid. Normally it's the decision not of society as a whole but rather of a few huge platforms. You may agree with banning QAnon accounts, but what about "anarchist groups" mentioned in the article? Or if the platforms go full WeChat (even scanning for text in images) to make sure your private messages are for the right politicians/companies/groups/laws/platforms and against the wrong ones? > Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished. I'd argue that editorial control over billions of conversations (and thus what billions of people appear to say/support) is far more powerful than editorial control over what a single newspaper says. Silent manipulation of public opinion in this way can even be used to make people less critical of the control that platforms have. I think it's something everyone should be cautious of, even if the current bans line up with what they consider dangerous views.