(05-28-2020, 07:46 AM)Last42min Wrote: You can't just go open another Facebook or Twitter. I have said for years that tech companies that represent a public forum need to treated like any public forum. The whole point is to have multiple ideas converge at once, then sort through the BS. One of THE selling points is that these tech platforms give people a voice to speak to the community. They are literally selling interconnection, but then filtering content to support their ideology. As far as I'm concerned, it's false advertising. There is a difference between a forum that focuses on a specific topic (like a place where democrats meet), and a company that is marketing to the whole of the public. The former should be able to make the rules it chooses (if it's clear that it doesn't welcome all parties) and the latter should only be able to regulate that which is already regulated: Inciting violence, public indecency, and the like.

The point of issue above is made worse by granting these companies government protection. Imo, this should only exist if they declare themselves a public forum, thus are free from libel. The minute they begin to censor individuals, that protection should be revoked. These companies need to let the local authorities deal with anything that is illegal. If they want to set something up that works more closely with the authorities, go ahead. Tech companies selling a public platform should have their discretion limited to the guidelines of the FCC. At the most, I think they could regulate speech as tightly as the smallest municipal code allows, but no more. If citizens have a problem with the regulation, they sue their municipality. This could allow people to vote for the level of speech with which they are comfortable, but allow citizens to challenge that in the courts if it becomes too restrictive.