Exactly. You have a freedom to speak. You don't have a freedom to use someone else's forum to gain an audience. No more than I have a right to walk into your house and do whatever I want.
Funny, I seem to recall all sorts of instances where the government has forced people and businesses to cater to those that they don't want to... Hell, Title IX is based on the premise of providing equal access by protected classes.
And for reference, political party is a protected class in DC, and that could extend to other areas. Politicians aren't allowed to block people on Twitter or Facebook, it's only a matter of time before the companies themselves aren't allowed to in many conditions.
There's also the concept of a public space in private ownership to consider. There's a big difference between your living room and a restaurant or park.
None of this is relevant. None of these protected classes are applicable here. Nothing has ever been about compelled speech or compelled publication.
If you really believe where you’re argument is going, I demand you give me your twitter account to use, so I can tweet whatever I want. If you don’t do that, you’re censoring me, and I guess I should sue you or something.
I’m not hard find online. I’ll be waiting for your DM.
At one point, protected classes weren't... then they were... The government cannot restrict your access, but they can force companies to expand it to be more equal.
I'll give you my passwords when you give me yours. Also, I never claimed to be both a publisher and a platform.
Facebook and Twitter should not have the protections of both. Also, you never came up with a coherent argument of why political viewpoint shouldn't be a protected class across the US, as it already is in DC. Just some false narrative of associating a single account to a set of massive corporations that hold control over what equates to public discourse.
If you want to change the status quo, you’re going to have to argue why it should be changed.
If you want a reason why politics is not a protected class I’ll give you third. First, there’s not wide spread persecution based on political beliefs. There simply isn’t. Second, eliciting political beliefs to a protected class is tantamount to undercutting all political association everywhere. You can’t argue for anything, as you’re “oppressing” the opposite view. Political speech is strongly protected already. What you’re arguing for is forced association, and compelled speech. Third, political speech is inherently mutable, which makes it completely irrelevant to a protected class, and do nebulous they are impossible adjudicate.
Far from a false narrative, I’m saying there is no difference a social network and any other private publication. It’s a private enterprise and they can do use it anyway they want. Just because something is big, doesn’t suddenly make it public. A newspaper also has a huge audience, but they don’t have to publish every rando’s letter. Nor do these platforms. Enforcing a TOS is well within their right.
If there wasn’t a Ga, or a Venemo, or a 8chan, or a Voat, maybe you’d have an argument. If we were talking about something at a very basic layer, you’d definitely have an argument. But none of that is what we’re talking about. It’s “I have to use twitter/YouTube/Facebook, because they’re popular!” Well.. too bad.its no different than the old mock headline, “Man upset that unpopular ideas are unpopular”
