Perhaps you should reread my comments... This is exactly the claim that I'm describing. The claim rests on the premise that these companies are abusing their mo

Perhaps you should reread my comments... This is exactly the claim that I'm describing. The claim rests on the premise that these companies are abusing their monopolistic or oligopolistic position over something posited as critical to society. Regulating viewpoint-based discrimination is one proposed remedy (another is removing "monopolies" by eg requiring federation). Nobody in this entire thread is saying that these platforms are legally in the wrong for inconsistently-applied viewpoint-based deplatforming. If they want to ban people for claiming the election was rigged or supporting single-payer healthcare or liking avocados, there's no legal issue at all. The topic under discussion is whether there should be, resting on the premise that these platforms are critical enough to public discourse that something like the utility model is appropriate. Note that I'm speaking in the voice of those making this claim, not personally espousing the claim. My inclination is away from kneejerk regulation, and I don't think distribution on the Internet fits neatly into the existing categories we use to reason about market power. I'm just shocked at the degree to which so many HNers are gleefully misrepresenting the issue, presumably so they don't have to engage in any critical thinking.