I agree, much to the dismay of some on the right. I guess we’re even farther right.
Freedom of the press does not include the freedom to use someone else’s press without their consent.
Yes, big social media are central to society as privately owned town squares - only because enough people choose to go there. Popularity does not impact rights.
That said, under current regulations Facebook/Twitter/etc are acting as publishers by not following “common carrier” principles, instead aggressively editing allied narratives - thus making themselves liable for other punishable content.
I’ve seen many juggernaut social platforms come and go. If you don’t like the current ones, don’t use them - when enough don’t, they’ll die off.
Thank you for recognizing FB, YT, twitter et al. as "press" i.e. publishers. It follows then that they should not enjoy lawsuit protection for being mere platforms.
No. Comparing a billion user mass communications infrastructure of now critical importance to a "press" is a f***ing lie.
My position is simple. If you are a massive communications system, and you restrict freedom of speech, you need to be destroyed by any means possible.
If you deny the rights of the public, you must be denied access to the public. You should not be allowed to have members of the public use your communications infrastructure.
The public has rights that "private" companies cannot take away.