I think they were referring to the fact that "it's a private company" is usually used in response to any moderation complaints or accusation of censorship. Yes, everyone know the first amendment only applies government to the government but it does not mean a private corporation cannot censor or is immune from complaints on it's moderation policy. But now that it's been used as a way to deflect criticism or excuse any excess on what's deemed acceptable by one side, it will be funny to figuratively see the leopoards eating their faces. At least I think that's what the parent comment meant.
>Not really. There's a certain political party who seems to want to redefine private companies as public commons, all because they don't like their hate speech being censored.
no, it's because it actually became the new public commons. That's where most gets their news, meet people, organise events, find jobs, etc. Politicians and organisations are now using it as their main mean of communication.
How do you think the 2020 election would have gone if twitter + facebook + reddit decided after 2016 that most anti-trump posts should be removed from the platforms for misinformation and instead they promoted anti-Biden content? I think they could easily have made him won by a landslide
This is extremely unlikely. Those platforms are incredibly far from having a monopoly on information in the west. People looking for the other side would have just gotten it from one of the many many other places it could be found.
The main gripe isn't that hate speech is being censored, although personally I don't think it should be. We complain about Twitter because anything to the right of Stalin is a potential censorship target, depending on Twitter's editorial marching orders for the day.
edit: I'm a little disappointed in myself for thoughtlessly going along with your framing. There's no such thing as "hate speech".
