“Facebook, FR, and or any domain has the right to set their own use.”
Apples and oranges.
No one here is complaining about censorship of conservative views on DU. We don’t participate there because conservative opinions are unwelcome.
FR is PRIVATELY OWNED. So is DU. Facebook is PUBLICLY traded.
Who owns Facebook? Shareholders!
When Facebook went public in 2012, 70 mutual funds bought shares.
Public companies are and should be publicly regulated.
Are government employees allowed to have political or religious views and opinions? Of course. Should they be allowed to use their position in the government to impose their views on others? Of course not.
Publicly regulated companies are bound by principles of democracy and representative government. Yes, we have a “free market” economy that you referenced. That means government regulated market.
Have you ever heard of “consumer protection”? All developed nations with free market economies have consumer protection as a feature of their free markets.
A person can engage in commerce using their own money, property, time, labor, skills, etc. However, in the marketplace there are regulations in order to protect consumers. Yes, if a person sells a bad apple in a private transaction, there are laws whereby the person harmed can sue and recover damages. But regulation is designed to prevent the bad apple from being sold in the first place.
There are also public safety issues. Online safety is a major issue with companies such as Facebook. That’s why Zuckerberg had to testify to Congress.
I do agree with you that choosing to leave Facebook is an option for consumers who do not like the censorship, selling personal data, and the security breeches of a business such as Facebook. However, this is no reason not to support regulation which protects the marketplace and consumer rights. Consumers should not need to file a lawsuit to get publicly traded companies such as Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter to comply with their own terms of service.
Here is the terms of service for Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/terms.php
These things are fairly well vetted legally. Almost everything in them is reasonable. The only questionable issues are with regards to what constitutes “discrimination” and “hate speech.” These are very broad and subjective terms which are being used to infringe on and attack Constitutional rights and liberties. When you allow liberals to define these terms, it basically gives them latitude to shut down all conservative speech. It’s happening, and you’re supporting it.
Your position allows liberals to take over companies such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter because it allows rules to be applied unequally and arbitrarily. Your position empowers and enriches them. It allows them to use public financing, just like they use tax revenues, to attack conservatives. They don’t even have to use their own money.
I don't have free speech at walmart, waffle house or facebook.
Sue for fraud. Or have .gov get involved in breach of contract. But, that's it. Outside of that .gov shouldn't have the power to control and change private parties, or publicly traded companies. This comes down to private property, of which I don't see you defending.
We disagree and nothing will change that.