> a business should be compelled to bake a cake with a certain message on it That is a misrepresentation of the case: > Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to

> a business should be compelled to bake a cake with a certain message on it That is a misrepresentation of the case: > Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The complain was under a _state law_ specifically to address sexual orientation discrimination and it has been acknowledged that such law doesn't force a business to make cakes with arbitrary messages. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado... That said: > If all meaningful communication is dominated by too-big-to-fail businesses with AI that can scour all correspondence, a reality we are rapidly approaching, then freedom of speech becomes meaningless. I agree that monopolies and centralization are a threat to freedom. Though would argue that it should be addressed both via decentralization (and specifically through counter-anti-desintermediation as discussed in the P2P Foundation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediation https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio...) and anti-trust enforcement.