Eirikrautha wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:30:
No one is compelling speech. Compelling speech means I am required to say something (you know, like when various interest groups say that you must publicly support them or they will doxx and destroy you and your business) I would not normally say.
Suppose a private entity does not want to broadcast a view it finds objectionable. The state, by means of the law and its penalties, says that the private entity must broadcast it. The private entity broadcasts the view. Why, under your framework, has the private entity not been compelled?
If the corporation's platforms are providing a public platform, then they are allowing public speech, not compelling it.
Obviously, private entities are not compelling anyone to post on their platform. I am asking why you feel they must broadcast views they don't want to broadcast under threat of being treated as a publisher. See below.
By not publishing, endorsing, or restricting speech beyond what is illegal in their jurisdiction, they are granted immunity for what others post on their platforms. Once they start to decide what speech is allowable, they have become publishers, by choosing which ideas they publish. It's not hard.
I understand that you believe platforms have gone too far in moderation. How does classifying them as publishers lead to less moderation? If, under your asserted legal regime, platforms are now liable for their content, won't that lead to more aggressive moderation and banning, not less? Legacy publishers all place substantial editorial boundaries on what will or will not be published. How would classifying social media as a publisher lead to a different result?
No one is demanding youtube announce that Cyberpunk 2077 is a glitch-ridden mess. They're just demanding that youtube allow others to make such a statement on their supposedly public (which is what they claim themselves in order to maintain safe harbor) platform.
Who do you propose should enforce this demand?
As I acknowledged up front, you have a grievance. It is unclear however that you have a proposed remedy which will actually address your grievance.