Why is corporate censorship more tolerable than government censorship?
Why is censorship by the bourgeoisie more tolerable than censorship by the government bureaucrat?
When corporations control de-facto monopoly platforms by nature of the network effect, they become censors, this shouldn't be a controversial statement.
(not to mention the idea that corporations are people is one of the dumbest legal constructs since the divine right of kings)
> Why is corporate censorship more tolerable than government censorship?
Because that's the free market?
Places like YouTube or whatever being a de facto place for expression only exist because they've been remarkably balanced (as per how the market sees it) in how they handle speech on their platforms. As we've seen with how new social networks pop up so quickly, it doesn't take very long for a company/product to lose market relevance for serious strategic missteps.
I'd buy this argument so much more if the people making it didn't _also_ dislike the free market. That just seems like a short-circuit way of avoiding that they don't want that speech to exist at all, because they believe it's equivalent to violence.
Why is censorship by the bourgeoisie more tolerable than censorship by the government bureaucrat?
When corporations control de-facto monopoly platforms by nature of the network effect, they become censors, this shouldn't be a controversial statement.
(not to mention the idea that corporations are people is one of the dumbest legal constructs since the divine right of kings)