However, individuals and businesses are free to refuse service, censor speech, etc. As long as they're not discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
In EU for instance telcos, banks etc often change conditions without "negotiation" they simply inform their customers that starting from the next month/year/end of auto-renewal period there are new conditions visible "there" and if their customers refuse the change can end the contract without penalties having, in theory, enough time to switch to another company.
This protection is not much effective in many cases since most telcos/banks etc offer nearly the same conditions and change them nearly at the same time so a "bad move" for a customer of company X typically is already present or about to arrive to others possible "competitors", regularly antitrust step into action but normally without enough strength and timing to really avoid many bad moves...
However no one can act without enough time from the over part to respond and certainly not without keep receiving money on behalf of anyone...
Oh, to clarify I hear about cases arrived in curt with motivation like "we have received (as proved by Postal Service) that communication, but inside the envelope there are only to white sheets..." and things of that level but still person to person actions with a formal responsible from both sides.
Generally, limited by terms of the contract with the customer, sure. But most consumer online services have contracts that provide broad discretion to providers.
Some particular services are subject to additional public regulation.
Then fix that, instead of using it as a loophole to ruin the web, and then still not having fixed that.
I highly doubt such an amendment could ever get popular or political support.
I've met people on the extreme left, they're not average Facebook or Google employees. No one on mainstream TV is "extreme" left. You have to get to theyoungturks or chapotraphouse. (And these are marginalized, given that you've probable maybe heard of Cenk and TYT, but CTH is a podcast and subreddit and nothing else).
If your ideal is that the US's center left (which is globally center or center right) is considered the extreme left and marginalized, your personal overton window is so far to the right that you probably shouldn't be making these decisions. And as you say, the government probably shouldn't be either, it would allow a government that believed that CNN was far left to censor it.
1. I’m a moderate liberal by every measure.
2. I don’t view CNN as far left; while it is shamefully partisan, no more so than Fox News.
3. I don’t want the government to censor anyone, I’m more or less a free speech absolutist.
4. I don’t think tech companies in general are far-left; only that a handful appear to contain a sufficiently powerful contingent of far left ideologues who feel comfortable using their company to suppress dissent (social media platforms censoring moderate liberal and conservative viewpoints, Google firing Damore under patently false pretenses, Mozilla pushing out Eich, etc).
That's to add a different "relative" measure.
Apart of that far left and far right are essentially the SAME, their "lower labor force" are fanatic people used as a weapon/Ford models workers by the very same "sponsors" who want dictatorship instead of free society.
If you read about or know someone who have visited both Franco's Spain and Chernenko's Soviet Union you will see that they are equally oppressive and use essentially the very same language, only with a little color variation in flags.
Do not forget that Lenin was massively financed by Kaiser's Germany, Stalin by UK crown etc just to stop socialism transforming it in a dictatorial regime with same symbols, not different by the hitler financing by German élites against socialism in Germany, mussolini financed by UK crown against a socialist Italy etc.
"left" is socialism, "center" is liberalism, the rest are only a grayscale of dictatorship movements disguised in various ways.
Those things are maybe left of center under some metrics, but not far left, and certainly not extremely far left, so why claim that?
Again, if you're now going to claim that the people like Sargon and Milo and co being censored are moderate liberals, I'm gonna say that you're just patently incorrect, and your left-right scale is broken. That you equivocate fox and CNN only cements this. Compare morning Joe (one of the most partisan shows on CNN) to Hannity or Carlson, and there really isn't a comparison.
As for why “far left” and not “moderate left”—because moderate leftists don’t have the authoritarian bent that we see from these organizations. They don’t seek to suppress moderate voices.
I don’t know much about Sargon, but nothing on his wiki page seems to suggest he is far right, and I never claimed Milo was a moderate anything. You keep throwing out these straw men as though you’re desperate to have a very particular argument when it seems like you and I likely agree on quite a lot...
RE Fox vs CNN, I don’t follow your point. They’re both patently moderate organizations; seems like you’re conflating partisanship with extremism and your sense of partisanship is based on two data points. In any case, I’m not interested in splitting hairs between Fox and CNN so long as we can agree that neither is extreme-anything (and if we can’t then you’re too far off the reservation to have a productive conversation with).