Hacker News Reader

If I understand what you're saying, that's an interesting point. With a smaller government and less regulation, corporations tend to have more influence over your day to day freedoms. When there isn't much choice or variety when it comes to picking corporations - such as your choice of online social network - then sometimes it doesn't mean very much that in theory the governments grant you much more freedom.

View on HN

Yes, that was one part of the point I was making. The other is that the left want to have it both ways. They want to argue that because of the point you made, corporations have a duty to provide the same kind of freedoms that governments are required to allow in public forums. On the other hand, when right wingers are censored by corporations, they deny that there is any duty for a private corporation to provide a venue for people to express speech that the corporation doesn't allow.

EDIT: e.g. jjaredsimpson's downvoted comment would probably not be downvoted if this article was about a "racist" post being removed from facebook.

I don't really think "the left" and "the right" are useful categories, unless you want to talk about people who don't think for themselves, which granted is a lot of people. I think it's perfectly acceptable to demand that some kinds of speech be allowed on Facebook and the rest prohibited - Hacker News functions well enough with restrictions on speech - but it's a total misunderstanding of the legal system in the US to demand it under the first amendment. And to say that the first amendment applies in one case but not the other is hypocritical, yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com