> ...the principles of “free speech” are not synonymous with the US first amendment (which concerns only government limitations)... I think this is the nub of

> ...the principles of “free speech” are not synonymous with the US first amendment (which concerns only government limitations)... I think this is the nub of the problem. There are common carriers like the phone company, and there are publishers. A publisher will be responsible for what they publish, whereas a carrier really just gives access to their infrastructure. We have a situation now that seems like social media companies want it both ways (none of obligations and all of the prerogatives), so we get something like a phone service that censors your calls when convenient to the phone company. I really think this requires a political solution, though one often sees technological solutions suggested (peer-to-peer, federation). > ...free speech itself is not an absolute principle but one existing in balance with other considerations... Yes, political speech is the most protected variety. Curiously, money can be considered political speech. So while I think the only kind of real solution here is a political one, I don't expect that to ever happen.