And for it to be an infrequent event.

The EU is gay

National security above all means

Having power feels so good

depends on the situation but it's best to err on the side of personal liberty

Ideally, the people are the nation. National security is directed and controlled by the people.

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

How should private companies that wrongfully censor political opponents be punished? Should they even be punished at all? When is corporate censorship okay, and is it something legislation can address?

homo

Private companies should be allowed t do as they please as long as they do not falsely advertise that they are unbiased

What’s to stop them from advertising they are unbiased but having a bias anyways?

Government fines

And how would one report this to the government and what essentially decides if a company has a bias or not.

Twitter now has huge biases against the right but none against anti-white racists.

Government does nothing because it’s a private entity.

Make large internet sites and apps legal public areas

Individualism is a cancer, with that said i oppose any government mandates to enforce anti-individualism. People should organize themselves into hierarchies, and it should be voluntary.

The bundle is stronger than the stick, etc

Mb, was reading yesterdays q and thought it was for today

Honestly though, part of me sees corporate censorship as an opportunity for conservatives to launch alternative media sources, and some have already been launched

But in do think designating certain ones as public sphere could work, as long as the criteria for becoming one was pretty strict

I was under the impression that private businesses were able to censor whatever they deem acceptable

It usually states it in their ToS

They are but when they become a form of public platform for everyone it’s less *social* and more media.

Private companies are able to censor at will, until they become utilities (like electricity) or market themselves as social platforms, then they're under a grey area.

I think I agree with how it's done atm, but I don't agree with how damn slow authority has been to act.

Depends if they're a monopoly as well

There's that one case where the company owned 80% of the town and was told they had to respect the bill of rights

That I agree with too.

If it's private it should have full freedom of association and speech, monopoly or not.

@K0R issue is, the government sells too much of the land, thus they literally couldn't leave their house without going on the companies property

they owned the roads, shops, houses, etc.

If you live in a location in which individual(s) you disagree with on a fundamental level own 80% of the land, I recommend you move.

The government should never auction off that much land

You have cases where your house can be literally surrounded by private property

with no public property in sight

I don't think any property should be in the hands of the state.

Private companies that are essential to the people (electric, water, gas) shouldn't be allowed to discriminate at all, same goes for social platforms. The only exception is where law is being violated

If you don't like your neighborhood, find a different one.

Why not?

By discriminate I mean enforce rules that violate the Constitution