I mean, define "endorsement". Permitting something to exist when you have the power to do otherwise is a mild form of endorsement. A commitment to free speech is, to an extent, an endorsement of all the speech that results.
> A commitment to free speech is, to an extent, an endorsement of all the speech that results.
Absolutely not. I'd argue that anyone should be free to talk with others about their opinion, but that doesn't mean I agree with that opinion. And letting then speak without shutting them down doesn't mean I agree either, just means I agree that they should be able to speak freely.
What kind of dystopian viewpoint is that? You go around stopping everyone from saying stuff you disagree with?
Platforms like reddit are in no way similar to personal property like a house that you live in.
A better analogy would be, imagine you rent your house to someone else. You make a rule that tenants may display political messages in their windows, but only for one political party.
That would be illegal. You can prohibit all signs if you want, but specifically choosing what signs someone gets to display violates their first amendment rights and could trigger a fair housing lawsuit. It doesn't matter that you aren't the government and that you own the property.
The renting analogy fits even less though. Renters have protections against evictions that don't exist for websites. If I break the rules of my lease it would take a month or 2 minimum to get kicked out. If I break Reddit's rules I can get banned immediately.
> I'd argue that anyone should be free to talk with others about their opinion,
I _think_ I agree with that. Don't hold me to it, but it feels right.
> but that doesn't mean I agree with that opinion.
Yup, sure, agreed.
> And letting then speak without shutting them down doesn't mean I agree either, just means I agree that they should be able to speak freely.
There is a world of difference between "not actively preventing someone from speaking" and "setting up a system whereby someone's speech is enabled and broadcast". Casting this to the real-world - if someone's yelling their opinions on a street corner, and I simply walk by without stopping them, then no, that's not an endorsement. But if I notice them yelling, and walk up and hand them a microphone - or (more closely mirroring social media setups) I install a public-access microphone, and stand there observing who uses it without trying to control it - then yes, through inaction I have endorsed what they choose to do with it.
> What kind of dystopian viewpoint is that? You go around stopping everyone from saying stuff you disagree with?
In areas I control and am responsible for, yes. If a guest in my home started spewing (what I consider to be) unacceptable speech, then (depending on my history with and pre-existing respect for them), I'd either take them aside and ask them to reconsider their choices, or jump straight to asking them to leave.
Enabling and endorsement are two different things, no need to conflate the two. If I'm a dentist and tell my patient that they could use any toothpaste they want but that I don't recommend the specific brand that they use, how is that an endorsement in any way? I'm allowing them the choice without endorsing in this case.
In your analogy, the dentist is selling the bad toothpaste and saying "Go pick any from the shelf over there but not that one". Why is he selling it then? The dentist can't say "well it's a free market" as if that somehow absolves him. He sells the bad toothpaste, that's a tacit endorsement.
You can be a proponent of free speech and not allow people to stand on your porch yelling heinous things, but that's not what Reddit was doing. They knowingly profited from that speech.
The context is discussion of social media platforms where the platform already owns all the content and has the tools to decide what gets published and what doesn't.
