Free Speech on Private Platforms

Facebook, Twitter, et al are not public squares.You can speak all you want in public spaces, on your own property (whether that be your home, your blog or your mastodon instance) mostly without limit.But Facebook, Twitter, Google, HN or any other private organization is under no obligation to host or amplify your speech.The government can't censor you and you may speak your mind in public spaces. You may also do so in private spaces, with the permission of the

Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses. Social media platforms are not some sort of public utility. Social media platforms are private businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant or bar or concert hall. If you dislike who a social media platform allows or does not allow, just use a different one. For example, many Trump supporters use parler... A platform which is

Facebook and YouTube are private corporations and have no obligation to platform any idea. They have the freedom to remove any content on their platforms they like, and your freedom of speech doesn't trump theirs. Of course, you can continue saying whatever it is you like -- you just have to find a platform for it yourself.

> I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform and allow whatever speech you want.I mostly agree with you on "website/app". As for the platform, it really depends on the nature and size of the platform. If it becomes an essential platform or if it is a monopoly, then you could argue it has utility features and hence everyone has a right to it. For example, you wouldn't say a power or water company doesn't h

The platform is private, so the 'individual author' isn't having their free speech restricted by being restricted from a single private platform. If someone gets banned from Twitter for posting statements inciting violence, there's nothing stopping that person from going to other outlets like Reddit or Facebook, or even starting their own site/newsletter. But if a private company were legally incapable of removing content that they determined was unacceptable on their

They aren't correct. A company or web platform can't take away your right to free speech. They can just refuse to help you reach their users.

It isn't a violation of free speech for a private publisher or forum to deny you publishing rights on their platform.Facebook is a private playground. They are allowed complete discretion over what they allow and don't allow on their private network, and this isn't a problem because you can stop using it at any time.It is much harder to "stop using" your country of citizenship, which is why many people feel that governments should be held to a much higher standard of openness, accountabil

I don’t think there’s much difference. If you argue that companies like Stripe and Twitter should “uphold freedom of speech”, then you’re restricting their freedom of speech.My right to speak doesn’t override you’re right to ignore me, or refuse to transmit my message.Now there’s a knotty issue with entities like Facebook and Twitter becoming the primary ways people communicate with large audiences, but people managed before Facebook and Twitter, so they can manage again.Or the alternat

While I'm a big advocator for free speech (I think companies should act like Signal and wash their hands of it), there's a difference between a government censoring an event and a public entity. If strong man Randy Savage wanted to give a public speech on your front lawn, you should have the right to say no because that's your property. You should also be able to say yes. This gets complicated because these online platforms blur the lines between public and private spaces. Objecti

Seems like a very pertinent distinction to modern democracy / society.Unlike in the 1800 when everyone could just go the the town square or publish their own pamphlet and have almost equal reach, today most discussion happens in 2-3 outlets: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.Whether those started as private companies, whether those are not public goods, etc, should be irrelevant. They have de facto captured a big chunk of the conversation that shapes the public opinion.I'd argue