My problem sometimes with this line of reasoning is that some rights are more important than others, we've already decided that as a fact.

For instance "Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with." Is true, but we force companies not to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Religion, etc. So your right of who you can associate with isn't iron clad.

We could just as easily add "Freedom of Expression" to the list of things you can not discriminate against, and suddenly the argument holds no water.

I'm not an American, however I sometimes enjoy the irony of America where one side of the political spectrum will be angry that a bakery is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, but think it's against the customers rights for AWS to not host content they don't agree with.

Whilst the other thinks the baker should be forced to bake a cake against their will, and AWS is free to drop any business they feel like.

> we force companies not to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Religion, etc.

none of these qualities pose a threat to others in our civilized society. however, spoken words have a direct influence on anyone who hears them. so there is in fact a difference which is not simply arbitrary.

So you're saying censorship has no threat to civilized society?

>“Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates,” Benjamin Franklin declared. By sharing knowledge and sparking debate, a free press invigorates and educates the nation’s citizens. Freedom will be “a short-lived possession” unless the people are informed, Thomas Jefferson once said. To quote John Adams: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”

However you want to define these apps, they're basically falling under the first Amendment. Obviously there are limits which are carved out in law. However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?

In an ideal world, the market would separate the wheat from the chaff, and these platforms would dry up and die on their own.

most things you quote do not apply to a society where you can reach 70 million people, effortlessly and immediately with 0 cost. 200 years ago there was no way to easily impersonate via a fake video, photo, or recording. wax seals were used to prove authenticity of official mail.

> However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?

like they have been doing since they have existed?

i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.

>like they have been doing since they have existed?

>i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.

No I was saying if the provider of printing to say your local news paper was friends with the Mayor and there was a corruption story, and they opted to decline the business of the local newspaper and refuse to print it.

Not every newspaper owns their own printing.

I hear what you're saying, I'm just saying the laws need to catch up, we can't depend on each company being socially pressured to do this or that. If we regulate the internet like a utility then we need to move to that world.