Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as that reason is not discriminatory in nature.
Twitter, favors the right, others probably favor the left. They all have the right to run their businesses how they see fit.
You have a few things confused. The second you hit enter, it is not your content, it is owned by FB/twitter etc. They are editing their content.
The other thing is that 'Freedom of Speech' protects your speech from Government interference, not from social and business backlash.
It blows my mid how many people have so little understanding of what Freedom of Speech actually means.
Who in Government has silenced Alex Jones' voice? Who in Government has said he can not build his vision and empire? Publicly owned companies not wanting to be associated with a hate-filled conspiracy theorist just looking to USE their platform for free advertising is not an issue of Freedom of Speech.
Every business has the right to refuse service, it does not even need to be in their terms of service.
Whether they are a platform or a media outlet does not matter, they are a private company.
Hey Gank. Actually, when you're a platform, you're saying you take no responsibility for the content on your site. When you start to edit that information, you become a publisher. These 2 roles have very different legal meanings. With regard to private companies refusing service, you can't refuse service to anyone based on political, racial or economic discrimination...even as a private business. You can outline rules that must be followed, but those rules also can NOT be discriminatory in nature.
The problem with these sites, they're editing political content they don't like. CLEARLY this proves they aren't platforms in the legal since. This makes them a media outlet, responsible for the content on their site...yet they claim they aren't media outlets.
Now I agree with what many have said, the wording of current laws has not yet caught up to technology...and it needs to. But the fact still remains, these sites are claiming "platform" status, while editing the content on their sites by purging political opinions they disagree with. They're trying to hide behind user rules being broken. When asked what rules were broken, 99% of the time they say, "oh, our mistake, it's the algorithm's fault". Funny how that algorithm always only deletes one side of a political argument.
Look, if they had a defined standard that was not discriminatory in nature, that would be one thing. But they don't. Instead they keep the standard vague so they can always blame the mysterious algorithm. If the standard was to ban any hate filled person, then countless people like Al Sharpton would be banned. But they don't ban them because there is no objective standard they're using. Instead they cherry pick certain people, point out something they did off the site, and then say it breaks the current rules on the site. That's an impossible standard. It allows discrimination of nearly anyone they want, while giving a pass to others. You could say that's within the rights of a private business, but again, that's NOT true when discriminating against political view points...which is clearly what's happening.
If they would just admit they're acting as a media outlet, then they're free to allow certain political views, while suppressing others...but that's NOT what they're claiming. They want all the benefits of a media outlet, with none of the responsibility of a media outlet label.
By the way...I'm afraid you're mistaken on Twitter? Their CEO, Jack Dorsey, is as far left as they come. He's admitted the company wrongly targeted conservatives.
I do not consider facebook a media outlet, and neither have the courts.
Exactly...they're considered a platform.
'Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on behalf of the majority that, while the First Amendment's free speech clause applies to "state actors" or governmental entities, the network is a private entity, not a state actor: "Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed," the decision reads. "Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."'
https://psmag.com/news/a-supreme-courts-decision-could-have-implications-for-social-media-free-speech
Of course a private business is not a state actor. I feel we're speaking different languages. It's illegal for a business to discriminate against people for their political views, unless those views are making direct physical threats of harm to others. When a social media platform starts to discriminate against users who they disagree with, that is illegal. They have a right to prevent ALL political content on their site, but have no right to offer service to some, while discriminating against others based on race, religion, political view, gender, sexual preference, etc.
When social media users violate their listed rules, that is not politics.
Because more people on the right, many who cloak hate in their 'politics', have been banned does not make it a political action by fb.
It is nice to try to frame it that way, if it suits you, but the reality is when someone builds ANYTHING and owns it, they have a right to ask me to follow the rules or leave.
I'm not sure you're reading my posts. I can literally point you to COUNTLESS hateful posts by the left, far more than anything on the right....it's not even close. These posts on the left don't get flagged by these social media platforms automatically. They ALWAYS have to be brought to their attention publicly before they act. The mysterious algorithm they always blame only seems to target one political side, over and over again.
What I said was, there are NO clear rules. They make their rules completely subjective so they can discriminate against conservative views.
We're literally seeing fascist groups like antifa pretend they're anti-fascist while spewing the most hate filled rhetoric about destroying anyone who even asks a question they disagree with. That's literally fascism and these sites ignore most of it.
You have Al Sharpton, one of the most racist people on the planet...right up there with the KKK, who still has not been banned. I could list about 3 dozen more off the top of my head.
It's illegal to discriminate against anyone for race, political view point, gender or sexual orientation. Have rules is fine. But you can't have 1 set of rules for one group, and not enforce them for another.
I can't open a restaurant and say I'm only going to only serve white people...then try to claim it's ok because I'm a private business.
I can have rules for behavior, but those rules can't be applied differently based on my political views, race, etc. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but apparently you're just not understanding.