Really? You want media to be state-run in the US?
You would actually need to repeal the first amendment to make that happen.
Mind you, they have various incentives--including potential anti-trust action--to maintain a light touch. But they have a huge ability to suppress if they chose to exercise it.
This describes me pretty well. I'm personally okay with Twitter/Facebook/etc. temporarily/permanently banning Trump's accounts for numerous reasons (not the least incitement to riot), but I feel very uncomfortable de-platforming all of his supporters. Sure the ones actively making threats or other illegal actions, but I don't like the automatic removal of all of their discussion.
I'm definitely very conflicted about the whole thing though. I don't really see an obviously right way forward.
I do think private companies should be free to run their platforms as they wish. I also feel really, really uncomfortable with the amount of power they have to control political discourse.
what is the relevance of these companies being private?
It’s less about the company being privately held and more about being a private sector company. There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property.
My pet theory is that while legally, all but a few websites are private property, at some point countries are going to introduce legislation that sets criteria for when a private website must start acting like a public square (ex: more than X income, Y user accounts, Z daily active users).
Or, have government-run public squares, something like "geocities.gov" or "NextDoor.gov".
Not sure which one I think is worse.
The US courts already apply existing standards for when private spaces have some of the same rules as public ones to online fora without needing separate legislation.
People are not demanding for government mandated one-sided media, they're asking a private company that they believe to be an impartial platform to don't take side.
Sure, you can follow both Parler and Twitter, Blaze and YouTube but I'd prefer to have a single transparent platform which respect completely freedom of speech.
In which case it becomes a cesspool that most people will want to stay as far away from as possible.
That said, I do enjoy browsing 4chan, which could qualify under your definition
I don’t think they claim any such thing. Read the Twitter TOS, guidelines, rules, etc. There are pages and pages of restrictions. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies
I suspect Twitter doesn’t use a moderation policy like Parler’s specifically because they don’t want to be a cesspool like Parler, with the correspondingly tiny user-base.
No, I just don't want tech companies "protecting" me from information. I'll read the direct words from people and process them for myself.
Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see.
[EDIT] Ironic that HN has chosen to censor my account. I guess what I said is too "dangerous" for you, the lowly user to read.
Isn't that exactly what they do to keep engagement up?