No one is arguing that they should be forced to continue to host offensive material. What we're talking about, is giving people standing to take Facebook to cou

No one is arguing that they should be forced to continue to host offensive material. What we're talking about, is giving people standing to take Facebook to court if their account is suspended for posting something that is true and substantive. There are many examples of this in the recent past, but perhaps the most surprising is those Facebook accounts who posted material indicating that Kamala Harris's record on gun rights in California is not encouraging for gun owners (not difficult material to fact check -- she activated the handgun roster) and found themselves suspended because, according to Facebook fact checkers, "Kamala Harris is pro 2nd Amendment". More controversially, it is now being argued that Twitter's recent suspension of the New York Post was entirely baseless: that there was no reason for the social network to conclude that the news agency was reporting the products of disinformation. The way property rights usually work, you aren't able to force people to treat you fairly in a particular situation, but you can take them to court over it and be made whole. The system certainly functions as an aggregate encouragement to treat other people fairly but only in rare situations are you going to see people forced to perform in a particular way. People would still lose their accounts but expanded rights would give them a way to pursue a remedy.