Your comment is a study in contradiction. You say >You can start your own website today much easier than it was to publish a pamphlet in the 18th century. The

Your comment is a study in contradiction. You say >You can start your own website today much easier than it was to publish a pamphlet in the 18th century. Then you go on to say, >We need Facebook, Google+, Twitter, we need independent "appstores" (a definite advantage of Android platform), we need niche sites like HN, These are not logically consistent. Do we need blogs or do we need big companies to allow big free speech? Are you saying we need both? But if we hypothetically get big companies legally responsible for allowing free speech why will be need independent sites? I am not sure what you mean here. >We should absolutely pressure and shame companies who make those questionable decisions and unnecessarily restrict their customers but more importantly we need to stick to open networks where news and information flow independently through different providers. Sure thing. Pressure them, but be aware that they are not _legally_ responsible for anything. That is why I said that we need a charter for all companies to sign so there is a framework where the law fails. We are saying the same thing (at least from the way I understand, yours is not a clear argument to understand). I am proposing a concrete action items to the premises you are making. I am not sure why you are downvoting/hating.