I don’t know about quite 90% (though maybe that was meant as hyperbole), but yes, it does seem a common occurrence to defend bannings and such on similar ground

I don’t know about quite 90% (though maybe that was meant as hyperbole), but yes, it does seem a common occurrence to defend bannings and such on similar grounds, often by conflating “legally permissible” with “appropriate”. That being said, while I certainly agree that decisions about how to run a platform can be such that they should be legal, but also shouldn’t be done, I also feel that the range of what can be appropriate for a platform to require/do can be fairly large, so long as they produce the appropriate expectations among users and others who interact with the platform (and not just by drastically expectations as immediate preparations for changing policies in big ways either) So, my view on the “ ‘just make your own platform’ “ complaint, is a bit mixed? Obviously the neutrality of the base-layers is highly important.. but if they weren’t, would the solution be to make a replacement that was, or to somehow get those in control of the base layers to behave neutrally? Well, the degree of lock-in at base layers would presumably be basically just as high as it is now (though, I would expect a typical world with less neutral base layers would also have more centralization of the base layers? Not sure how that would influence this.) Well, at least if the base layers were govt controlled, then I guess there would probably be an obligation for it to be neutral, not just something desirable. Perhaps if it were privately owned by a single org, due to being so critical, it would be justified for govt to (with appropriate compensation) , Ok nvm idk what I’m talking about