Yes, because it's their computers.
That trade-off is not always made absolutely in favor of the property owner. For example, there are privately owned public spaces : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space
The complex question is whether Google's servers should be considered more like private property that provides a public service and has to allow access to anyone or like the private property that is your personal computer, where you can grant and revoke access as you please and nobody has a say in that.
(1) the services, despite not legally being anything like privately owned public open spaces, should have an interest seized by the state and be converted into the digital analog of such spaces.
(2) despite in many cases having many robustly competing providers, the services should be subjected to utility-style regulation.
(3) political position ought to be a protected class for public accommodation discrimination, and all the acts at issue should be considered within the scope of prohibited political position discrimination under such law.
And when people are cut off from aforementioned utilities, it's done with notice, and with the ability to have service restored when payment resumes.
Monopoly utilities are different than services for which their are widespread alternatives, and Google's account-required services are neither monopolies nor regulated utilities.
As noted in response to a sibling comment, the presence of alternative providers has proven to not to be a reliable remedy for some opinions.
No, they are not currently regulated utilities. However, I believe that if they aren't careful, they may find themselves forced into that role.
It's suggestive evidence. But no actual “monopoly argument” has been made to negate.
> Netscape, Opera, and other browsers existed when Microsoft was slapped down for IE.
Sure, but IE wasn't the monopoly they got slapped down for, it was the thing they got slapped down for trying to drive with their PC operating system monopoly. So the existence and market strength f competing browsers isn't even related to the market in which the monopoly at issue existed.
It was directly related, because it threatened Microsoft's OS monopoly by providing platform independent content. And so, Microsoft directly attacked Netscape and others.
"Judge Jackson finds that Microsoft was especially concerned about technologies, such as Netscape’s Navigator browser, that could support platform-independent computing and thereby erode Microsoft’s position. In response to the Netscape threat, Microsoft undertook a broad array of anticompetitive practices to increase the market share of its Internet Explorer."[0]
But you're right, it's not the alternatives that really matter - it's using the power associated with being a monopoly to negatively impact consumers. Google has an effective monopoly in many areas (including email), and as such practices which were OK when they were smaller are no longer going to be considered OK.
[0] http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop7.4microsoftmonopolyf...
It's related to Microsoft's notice for illegally leveraging their OS monopoly, because of a speculative future threat it posed to that monopt by commoditizing the underlying OS.
It isn't directly related to the market at that time in which Microsoft had a monopoly; competing browsers we're not yet substitute goods for Microsoft's PC operating system, the way that competing email services are substitute goods for Google's email service.
I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
It is the argument that is still lawfully used to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the country; only a minority of states have public accommodation laws under which sexual orientation is a protected class.
The balance between the state interests involvee in public accommodation laws and the free speech and free association rights they limit is a source of endless debate. The fact that the public in some part of the country has decided that one axis has circumstances which warrant such a limitation is not enough to make the case that everyone must accept that the limitation is universally justified for some other axis.
> I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition.
> Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition.
That argument seems in direct opposition to the argument that, e.g. Christian bakers and photographers should be required to provide services for gay weddings. If Google may not be mandated to relay political views that they disagree with, how can photographers be mandated to do so? Do multi-national megacorporations have more rights than individuals? Or is one political view simply wrong, and therefore acceptable to discriminate against?