I find an issue with free speech itself.

However, if you say 'That vase is not to be disturbed', then it's clear you shouldn't fuck with the table

Now you're conflating specific legalese with rights.

you shouldn't even jump up and down near that vase.

you shouldn't blow on the vase in hopes to knock it off

Whether you express it as rights or intentions doesn't really matter much at the end of the day.

The protection belongs to the vase, not the one that *really* wants to break the vase.

I get his point but pratel needs to iterate imo

But not gonna force you to.

I'm approaching it in the manner that someone who seeks loopholes would, and that is the word of law.

I'm NOT a lawyer, nor am I in a position to be doing this sort of stuff.

I'm just offering my contribution.

I've got my own business to build.

Does the process of protecting the individual involve restricting the individual in any aspect?

@SantaSoc Since when did organizations have free speech rights? There's plenty of precedent that large companies that provide certain services provide it to everyone unless there is an economic reason not to or a specific pragmatic reason the company can't.

Yes, if you twist "the individual" enough.

I think we've forgotten how a bill of rights works.

Not really

We keep jumping from point to point

Whatever Rye. What would you propose doing at a pragmatic level.

Regulating something pragmatically is subjective as well lol. Give us boundaries

Something like common carrier restrictions.

If you are involved in the infrastructure of the internet and are sufficiently large to not be replaced, you have to serve all customers.

You're not allowed to just censor people.

A designation of infrastructure would be useful.

Have to"

Really, that's what it all comes down to.

Very large social media, ISPs and hosting providers.

Very large being a key word here.

Services like paypal, stripe, server farms, domain registrants, are all vital for operation.

A small platform of a couple 100 isn't worth putting effort into tracking.

So the right of the business owner to not serve individuals doesnt come to play.

Paypal and Stripe should have been recognized as a financial institution long ago.

They're generally not allowed to discriminate already.

That's the thing, Socrates, they're utilizing loopholes.

Like, most of this "no business with gun makers" is already illegal.

I wish we were in voice chat i cant type fast lol

I don't like voice chat. Too mangled. Also hard to hear people and it always felt like it could be exploited.

I think anything that handles money or important services to the upkeep of our government is necessary for regulation.

Got some Long John Silver Fish and Shimp Popcorn!

YUM