> The difference is that this is private companies doing it of their own volition and not by government demand.
Is this really a meaningful difference if the end result is the same?
Is this really a meaningful difference if the end result is the same?
It saddens me that so many people draw this sort of false equivalence. All it does is provide comfort and support for the sort of pervasive state imposed news blackouts and retribution against individual commentators practiced in places like China.
Those 3rd parties have rights too. They shouldn't be required to support and provide resources for speech they disagree with.
> Those 3rd parties have rights too. They shouldn't be required to support and provide resources for speech they disagree with.
I think people keep conflating the notion of being _able_ to say what you please and having a platform to do so. I sympathize with these people because I have witnessed the erosion of the public square as a place to promote your own ideas (with people glued to their phones, with headphones on, etc).
However, I agree that we can't force service providers to host content they disagree with _for free_ but there's a reason we require water companies to provide water to synagogues and mosques alike.
I think as we advance technologically, access to information (and the platforms through which they are spread) will be regarded as a necessity to function as a member of society and will be regulated as such.
Not even close. In China, you cannot even talk about politically-sensitive topics like the Tiananmen Square massacre. I don’t think you appreciate the massive chilling effect of its policies, and the strength of the Party’s grip on the social consciousness. It’s a different ball game.