afaic, there are three options
1. the current way: companies are allowed to censor whomever they want and don't have to give anybody a platform
2. the risky way: the government forbids unjust censorships, meaning companies are basically forced to provide their services against their will
3. the super suspicious way: the government runs its own social media platform, where *anybody* can say *anything*, so companies aren't forced to give a platform and ppl who are censored by the private sector can still have a voice... but the government has an even easier time with surveillance

the current way might suck for some people, but i'd say it's clearly the least shitty system

at least, i don't see a way around it

@Grenade123 That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. I'm saying that if a customer is denied service for an non-economic reason, the company gets a fine.

There's not too much play here from what I can tell.

~~ofc the chances are high that there's a good option i simply haven't thought of~~

What is a non-economic reason?

@shinsoo Yeah, I feel similarly. Of these I think #2 is the only real option. #1 is an oligarchy of a small number of companies and pressure groups. #3 is an oligarchy of government bureaucrats.

So companies forfiet their ability to choose who do business with?

@Grenade123 do you want to make an argument that James Wood is really costing Twitter that much money?

A man causing a scene cannot be kicked off?

I mean, that's how it works for the phone company.

You don't see much issue there.

Do you really want to argue against the baker

Yes. And quit dodging my question.

You assume I like how things currently are

In the case of the baker, there were alternatives and clear religious and free expression imperative. The baker offered to sell a standard service without issue.

The Patriot act is law now, does that mean things are okay?

Now make your argument for banning James Woods.

Quit dodging and changing the topic.

I don't need to make an argument for banning James woods, because I'm not the one advocating they need a reason

So you think that they should just ban James Woods.

And when they get around to banning you...

I don't use social media

If there is a demand, someone will supply it

Not necessarily.

Corporations make decisions for financial reasons

You need the ability to meet that demand.

discord is social media

we're being social rn

And if they banned me, I'd go out to the real world where I remember that social media is a gaint bubble and normal people live outside that bubble.

You're naive.

In the case of Gab, in my mind it was fear of brand damage being associated with a psychopath as well (although i could be wrong here) fear of lawsuit

@shinsoo and my statement stands. They ban me I go back to the real world

@DrYuriMom that's actually one of the funny things about these kinds of laws. They can provide cover.

I'm naive. The left have been controlling social media and the news for a while, yet trump won.

Explain to me how he did that if the power they already have is not enough

you can face repression for your views offline too

I may be naive. I wouldn't be here if i wasn't willing to admit that possibility.

@Grenade123 Ok, they go and rally around social media and convince everyone online to go against your interests and you can neither organize nor talk.

I'm sorry, but last I checked, I could still kick socialist out of my house and hold meetings there

And use the police to get them off my lawn