I’ve taken strong pushback (on here, and Twitter) for a couple of years for saying these things. People want to get hyper technical about what a “common carrier” is and has been, historically, and how it’s not actually analogous. I get all of that. It’s time to modify and expand the definition. Hopefully, more people are waking up to the truth of this.
Most people don't seem to understand what the problem is because social media is a circus sideshow for them so they don't see the censorship, while those whose opinions align with those doing the censoring really don't see what the problem is because they can't imagine the tables could ever be turned on them. It isn't until some weird south african guy buys Twitter that suddenly it dawns on people that maybe the rule of law exists for a reason... but only insofar as respecting the rule of law protects them, of course, and not their opposition.
This isn’t really true though, the left has always been concerned that social media censors them, and why wouldn’t you be? Speech is power, and the left is all about promoting their own ideas(not uniquely so, just pointing it out). in fact the left often thinks that even before Musk, social media companies have leaned right. This idea that the left loves social media companies is a right wing narrative. We can talk about whether or not it is true that social media has a left/right wing bias; I’m not necessarily saying that the left doesn’t think social media should do more to fight hate speech (which may disproportionately impact conservatives) but painting the left as loving social media before Musk is just fantasy.
It's because most people can't handle hypotheticals very well in general.
Assuming social networks are common carriers means also assuming that laws and law enforcement would need to adapt to the resulting spam filled environment. People would also need to adjust the way they communicate online, you'd need to create something similar to google plus circles to allow free and open discussion that is self moderated. You'd need new forms of trust protocols. You'd need...
Most people just can't fathom how much would need to change to make the internet work. They try to fit in what we have now and just say well that won't work so you're wrong.
I've noticed people also struggle with the big tech censorship argument. The amount of times I've said, censorship laws should extend to social networks and been met with "censorship only applies to government" arguments as if that wasn't the exact premise my argument started with just boggles the mind. Yes, I know, they're private companies, I'm advocating for changing laws so they do apply, not applying laws that don't apply.
This is explicitly where Musk has stated he wants to take Twitter.
For instance, I HATE that people will quote people I've blocked, and I see their comment with a greyed-out quote box. I want blocking to work like Facebook. If you block someone there, you see NOTHING from them. I don't want to even see tweets that REFERENCE something they said. Twitter currently "eggs you on" with this dark pattern.
If we could tailor our own, personal "algorithm," the end result will be something like the proverbial "street corner." Any idiot can carry a sign and shout at people, but YOU can decide if you want to walk up and hear him, duck your head and pass by, or take another street, and NOT have Twitter make that decision FOR you. In my mind, this could be a very different scenario than what we have today.
There is a quick and obvious retort to "censorship only applies to the government", and that is that Censorship consists of any act of force or fraud that deprives one of the Freedom of Speech, by whatever means otherwise lawfully exercised. By defining it in terms of force and fraud it doesn't matter whether you're dealing with a state actor or a private actor -- any criminal action taken to silence people is Censorship, including tortious interference, conspiracy against rights, etc.
Another obvious retort is that people saying as such are laboring under the delusion that the Freedom of Speech is a right granted under the First Amendment, rather than being a natural right which the first amendment states is outside the purvue of Congress to regulate... which leads us back to the original retort above.
Ultimately, though, people who make such arguments aren't actually interested in an argument. They're simply making up excuses for their class bias so they can go on oppressing the proletariat without having to just openly state that as a self-identified member of the petit bourgeoisie they align with the interest of the bourgeoisie and don't care what happens to you or I... since openly admitting that wouldn't allow them to go on larping as heroes of the revolution (or however they phrase it in the cosmic gag reel running in their head).
