>The government forcing private entities to disseminate speech they don't want to — that's where this leads, right?
I don't think so. Is anyone proposing this as a solution? The parent certainly doesn't seem to be.
I don't think so. Is anyone proposing this as a solution? The parent certainly doesn't seem to be.
> Yes, totally agree. These big companies must be broken up, or treated with a much greater degree of regulation (effectively holding them to the standards that the government is held to, as sole provider of some functions).
I am sympathetic to breaking up big companies (albeit because of a dislike of private consolidations of power, rather than a commitment to freedom of speech). But their alternative proposal is exactly the scenario to which I was referring.
My issue here isn't with the idea that we do something about large tech companies. It's the proposal to abridge legal freedom of speech, masquerading as an attempt to protect free speech. OP is presenting this as an objective argument about freedom, when really they just don't like where the lines are drawn.