>Google owns their servers and can say what is allowed and what is not.
Well that's the problem in a nutshell. It ain't good for our society.
Well that's the problem in a nutshell. It ain't good for our society.
Republicans fought to make companies people, and to be not regulated. And now are crying when it fired back, because forcing a company to publish or block something is actually stepping on its first amendment right.
You won't really have such platform, unless it is done through a well established non-profit or through government (as long as government is Democratic and checks and balances work correctly).
People act like being banned is a life threatening event.
The top performers on FB are conservative pages for crying out loud!
They are afraid of much, which is the problem. It is irrational fear and based on ignorance and hatred.
Parler earned their ban 1000 times over. When sites get shut down by their hosts because its users were openly inciting violence that is not a problem.
I have yet to see someone get booted for following the platform's rules and merely being conservative. People from all over the political spectrum get banned every day.
In that free public conversation is centrally crucial to the sanity of our society.
And having that public conversation controlled by a profit-seeking entity is definitely detrimental to that conversation. And thus detrimental to the sanity of our society.
And an insane society is obviously all kinds of threatening.
If they ban you, they are telling you that they don't want you on their private property.
They don't take away your internet connection.
When did society need Google, or Twitter, or FB to function? They do not. Those are simply three websites. There are literally millions more.
If this site banned me, I lost literally nothing. If Google Drive banned me(assuming I have an account, which I do not) I lost literally nothing. Same for FB. Same for Twitter.
They are not required for a functional society.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Because the public conversation requires a public. Right?
They stop you from using their services, that is it.
You have no right to access popular private servers.
You have no right to a conversation because everyone else has the right to ignore you if they so choose.
Again, private companies can not be forced to give you server space. That pesky first amendment thing and all.
If their service is popular, then the public conversation is to that degree affected. Clearly.
Show me where you have the right to have a conversation. That means that others can be compelled to talk to you.