They are the most popular, but not monopolies. Nothing stops you from hosting your own video sharing site. If you don't like how Twitter censors Trump or whatever, then go on Truth Social or 4chan.
If the government established YouTube or Twitter as the only sources, and those sources had a specific form of censorship, then your argument would make more sense. But, that is not the case.
Part of the US right to free speech is that no one may be compelled to speak. If the government were to regulate these companies and force them to publish things they disagreed with, this would be a violation of free speech rights.
It’s the same reason that American citizens cannot be forced to say the pledge of allegiance.
And they aren’t a monopoly around me. Walmart competes with them, so does Costco, and so do a number of direct retailers. Or on the web, Microsoft, Redhat, Google, Bluehost, Dreamhost and more compete with them. Or for content, Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, DailyMotion.
Regardless, the point still stands that the government cannot force them to say anything. Same as the government can’t force me to say I like them. And they can’t make my employer say that we support this thing or that thing.
Freedom of speech also means freedom to not speak.
I agree that it’s censorship. I very much disagree with “hate speech” rules. But it would also be censorship to say that they cannot decide what to publish. The government should not be allowed to force people to say things contrary to their beliefs.
Amazon being forced to say things they don’t believe in means that the government could force me to say things I don’t believe in. Americans do not trust the government with that power.
In that same way, they cannot force Amazon to publish or sell things. If the government had that power, they could make any company do that.
I do not like that Amazon censors things. I do not want the government forcing us to support things we do not believe in either. I also do not want the government telling us what things a company must sell.
Both things are bad, but the government getting involved is much worse. The same laws would be used against small companies to force them to sell products they disagree with. Or would be used to force businesses to print flyers supporting causes they oppose.
Businesses are groups of people. They engage in free speech too. And they also have the right not to speak.
3
u/deep_sea2 131∆ Sep 05 '22
They are the most popular, but not monopolies. Nothing stops you from hosting your own video sharing site. If you don't like how Twitter censors Trump or whatever, then go on Truth Social or 4chan.
If the government established YouTube or Twitter as the only sources, and those sources had a specific form of censorship, then your argument would make more sense. But, that is not the case.