5 ms·

I don't "favor censorship", I favor people not being forced to store and serve content they object to. It doesn't require technicalities or side arguments. If

• bakugo 4y ago
  >people not being forced to store and serve content they object to Corporations are not people. I agree that small independent websites hosted in someone's basement should have the right to pick and choose what they host, but when your service becomes so popular and widely used that it's effectively a standard public communication platform (and is marketed as such), the rules should change.
• tarakat 4y ago
  "People" like banks, phone companies, ISPs, software vendors (suppose MS decides not to support your speech and prevents you from using any of their products), multinational taxi (Uber) and rental (AirB&B) companies, utilities (water, gas, electricity), or retail chains (Walmart)? Calling such entities "people" is at best misleading.
• danaris 4y ago
  > If the government wants all speech to be available, it can provide a space for that itself. Honestly, I really feel like this is right at the core of the problem right now: The government does not do this. There is no "public square" online that's genuinely publicly owned and operated in the public interest.
• treis 4y ago
  Unfortunately you can't have your (gay wedding) cake and eat it to. If we go down this path it's bye bye to 70 years of anti-discrimination jurisprudence and law.