He’s talking about private groups.

Regardless, no private platform is forced to provide you a voice. You can set up your own site and set up your own servers if need be. People have been getting their ideas out there before social media and even when the mainstream media wouldn’t cover them.

That’s how the civil rights movement came to prominence.

Again, during the civil rights movement there was no social media and mainstream media.

You use personal outreach and then you build up from there. There are church networks, civil groups, advocacy groups etc

> There are church networks, civil groups, advocacy groups etc

Which are now largely dependent on social media and the like to reach people.

Church's somewhat less so because they do have services that people physically go to. Most campaign and advocacy groups work online, and for some social media is their main focus. They have to go where people are.

Then that’s their problem. I doubt that there is any group that you can’t start locally and build up a following.

> They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication

Absolute bullshit. It has never been easier in history to publish your own thoughts for the consumption of anyone who is interested in reading them. You can make your own website and put just about whatever you want on it. You can write and publish pamphlets or books with print on demand services. You can record audio or video with your phone and put it on your website or just send it directly to people. You can walk down to the town square and say pretty much whatever you want.

You absolutely don't need to be on Facebook or Twitter or ANY social networks to exercise your free speech. None of these companies has power over any means of communication other than their own platforms. You don't have to use their platforms.

> You don't have to use their platforms.

Yes, but you can reach far fewer people if you do not.

This is well on the way to arguing that you are free to say what you want in a sealed room.

You don't have the right for anyone to care about what you say, and never have.

Your argument seems to be that the New York Times has no choice but to publish my op-ed, because otherwise how will anyone find it?

No, its more like arguing that telecoms companies (especially ones with monopolies) should not be able to refuse service on grounds that they do not like views people express in their phone calls.

The NYT is a publication, social media are platforms.

And? If you are on a platform and depending on random people finding your message, how are you going to get above the noise?

You have to put in the work. Major changes happen by people getting thier voice out before social media

> Major changes happen by people getting thier voice out before social media

But they did not have to compete with social media. There are more third spaces (as is often discussed on HN) and local ways to get started.

Much in the same way you are allowed to criticize Putin in Russia.

So long as you do it in a sound proofed room.