That's somewhat true currently.
If you ship mail or packages with UPS, FedEx, Etc they are allowed to open and inspect what you send. The USPS is not allowed to do that, not without a warrant. When people ship drugs via mail they use the USPS for that reason, that it's more difficult for them to obtain warrants to discover suspected drug shipments while a UPS or FedEx will happily open any package they suspect may not be legal to send.
First of all, there's a massive difference between transporting a private package from point A to point B vs hosting someone's speech on a privately owned platform and broadcasting that speech through a privately owned network, with wider consequences that do not come into play when dealing with private correspondences between parties.
Next, paying a fee to a private company to ship your package confers certain obligations about what you are entitled to, when you are utilizing a privately owned platform for free, you are not entitled to anything.
Finally, a private company is certainly within their rights to refuse to ship your package based on an any legal criteria they choose.
Factually wrong. Both when paying, and when using something "for free", there's a contract in place (terms & conditions, etc.), and that contract also needs to obey local laws. I don't know if you've ever heard of GDPR, but that's one example of things you are entitled to when using a "privately owned platform for free". Even the USA has laws regarding this, though less strong than GDPR (look it up).
> refuse to ship your package based on an any legal criteria they choose
The question here is what is a "legal criteria". And just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It used to be legal to kick people out of restaurants because you didn't like the color of their skin, it's not today. It used to be legal to fire people because they were members of a union or other political group, it's not today. (All depending on your country's laws of course.)
Also, the point of an analogy, is to illustrate a point through a comparable situation. Pointing out that there's a "massive difference" but never explaining what the difference is and how it affects the validity of the comparison, is just a (very common) misunderstanding of what an analogy even is.
GDPR is not an "entitlement", its regulation governing how sites can operate with your data, it doesn't entitle you to service.
> The question here is what is a "legal criteria"
You don't have to agree with the legal criteria, but there is no question as to whether it's legal to arbitrarily ban users based on the content of their posts.
> Pointing out that there's a "massive difference" but never explaining what the difference is and how it affects the validity of the comparison
I went into great detail to explain why the analogy is bad, it's up to you if you want to acknowledge it. This isn't 2016, the absurd framing that tries to pretend that you are entitled access to social media platforms on the basis of free speech is tired and obviously wrong.
> a massive difference [what difference?]
> wider consequences [which consequences?]
> certain obligations [which ones?]
Okay dude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
> This isn't 2016
https://knowyourmeme.com/sensitive/memes/come-on-its-2015-cu...
> GDPR is not an "entitlement"
Do you really want to get into the semantics of "entitlement" vs "right". Are you not entitled to a copy of "your" data according to GDPR? https://gdpr-info.eu/art-20-gdpr/
What's even "your data"? Are the posts you write not "your data"?
The semantics doesn't matter because GDPR is just an example of the LAW regulating YOUR USAGE of a FREE PLATFORM. It's an EXAMPLE that disproves your false statement "when you are utilizing a privately owned platform for free, you are not entitled to anything"
> there is no question as to whether it's legal to arbitrarily ban users based on the content of their posts
I already told you: "just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It used to be legal to kick people out of restaurants because you didn't like the color of their skin, it's not today. It used to be legal to fire people because they were members of a union or other political group, it's not today."
The differences are listed in detail in my first reply to you, plain as day for anyone to see. The rhetorical tactic of repeating "what differences" doesn't change that. I suggest you actually read what I wrote or work on your reading comprehension.
> Do you really want to get into the semantics of "entitlement" vs "right"
You're the one focusing on semantics in order to avoid acknowledging the substantive differences between personal data rights and guaranteed access to social media platforms.
> What's even "your data"? Are the posts you write not "your data
Correct. The posts you write are your data, but GDPR doesn't confer access to a social media platform, only control over your data. You are deliberately conflating data rights with impunity from being banned
> just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be
Your personal opinion about what the law should be is irrelevant.
> there's a massive difference between transporting a private package from point A to point B vs hosting someone's speech on a privately owned platform and broadcasting that speech through a privately owned network, with wider consequences that do not come into play when dealing with private correspondences between parties.
If you think that this states what the difference and what the consequences are (in your mind), I don't know what to tell you except you have a vivid imagination. Sorry I'm not a mind reader. A tip for the future is actually stating what you mean, instead of some vague suggestion at it.
> but GDPR doesn't confer access
GDPR was given AS AN EXAMPLE. I never suggested it "confers access". That interpretation comes from your own inability to read what I have written three times now. I don't know how to be more clear with you. Perhaps you can give my comments to a LLM that can translate them into something more comprehensible for you, it seems English is neither your first nor second language.
> is irrelevant
For what? You know laws can change, don't you? Or do you just accept each and every law, in every country, as the way things should be?
I already told you: "just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It used to be legal to kick people out of restaurants because you didn't like the color of their skin, it's not today. It used to be legal to fire people because they were members of a union or other political group, it's not today."
I'm satisfied with the reasoning as stated. If you can't grasp why a social media ban and refusing to ship a letter are two completely different scenarios with respect to free speech, I can't elucidate it any further. Perhaps you should take your own advice about using an LLM to understand the point.
> "GDPR was given AS AN EXAMPLE. I never suggested it "confers access
You gave it as an example of entitlements, but I pointed out that it doesn't entitle you to anything that you don't already own. Unlike your own data, you don't own a voice on a social media platform, hence why the example doesn't work.
> For what? You know laws can change, don't you?
It doesn't matter that the laws can change. You have no idea if or how they might change, so that observation does not contribute anything to the discussion.