> Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations.
That's what this argument is about... Currently, the laws don't require companies or individuals to uphold free speech when they are providing a public square venue.
If people want to create private subreddits or private Facebook groups, go ahead and moderate.
But twitter isn't doing that, they're providing a quasi public space but then dictating what can be said.
The argument were making is that is dangerous to democracy and the same free speech rights should translate here.
Arguing from the point of view of what current laws say when we are arguing that laws need changing is just tiresome, please either argue why your current laws are actually worth keeping using first principles or just stop.
> Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations.
Upon more thinking, I feel like maybe this was close enough to a first principles argument.
The reason I think in this case we have a right to some of these resources is due to the fact they are in essence exploiting the people's resource. We have to speak somewhere online, if you want us to congregate in your public square, we should be entitled to some regulations, in return, you get to advertise to us, charge fees for upgrades or boosting or whatever else you want to do.
Ideally in a free market we would be able to find a competitor and congregate there instead but since this isn't a free market and tragedy of the commons is a thing were stuck with twitter being a monopoly on public political discourse.
> Ideally in a free market we would be able to find a competitor and congregate there instead but since this isn't a free market and tragedy of the commons is a thing were stuck with twitter being a monopoly on public political discourse.
Twitter isn't a monopoly, though: there's all kinds of other social media services available, as well as other places where "public political discourse" occur.
Free speech doesn't mean you're entitled to your preferred choice of venue. I recall when I was a kid, the local Nazi didn't get a prime time spot on local TV, though I'm sure he would have wanted one. He had to make due with a public access slot that very few (if any) people would watch.
That same Nazi is also the reason passwords were implemented on the university computer clusters, because he was caught using them without permission (as a non-student) to print neonazi flyers.
I don't know if those examples really translate. They're both not public square resources. Twitter is different, it's an open platform where anyone can have a say. Until twitter deems it uncomfortable.
Tv airwaves and physical printers are not things open to the general public.
If corporations have more reach than governments when it comes to open exchange of ideas, restriction on censorship needs to extend to them too.