They can and do - just go to prageru.com.
So does Alex Jones and everyone else whining about censorship.
This whole thing isn’t about free speech, it’s about people being able to make a lot more money if they have the free sites Facebook and Twitter carry their stuff.
They don’t want free speech - they have it.
They want to force private businesses to broadcast that speech whether the business agrees with it or not.
See my post 35.
I am curious to know your opinion on how much responsibility these companies have over the content on their site when they actively pick and chose what can and can’t be on them as opposed to when they simply allow everything that is legal.
Let’s say there was a very large and very vocal ISIS group on a new social media platform calling for the death of Christians. Let’s say these groups were using this new platform to egg each other on to commit terrorist acts. The platform knew the groups were actively doing this. The platform had censored other groups and removed their content but intentionally chose NOT to remove the ISIS content.
Should they be held accountable for the violence perpetrated by followers/subscribers/viewers of the ISIS group?
Have you seen some of the left wing hate content that IS allowed on these sites? From the Black Lives Matters groups to the anti-Trump groups to the wacko LGBTQ groups, they are nuts and actively calling for violence every single day. Considering these companies are CHOOSING WHICH CONTENT THEY WANT ON THEIR SITE, shouldn’t they be responsible for the violence that is committed by people who view the content they intentionally allow?
Why do you primarily criticize the right and defend the left? Fascinating.