by freedomben | 2025-04-23 19:56:55+00:00
> Unless you're saying that people should lose their speech rights when they form a business?

I tried to make clear I wasn't making a legal argument, but since you mentioned it I will address it, but first I'll just say that no I'm not saying that people should lose their free speech rights when they form a business. I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote, but no, legally they don't and shouldn't (with maybe one exception, mentioned next). What I have a problem with is the lack of cultural appreciation for free speech. Culturally, the powerful people at Youtube decided that free speech was not important, at least not as important as controlling the narrative and preventing the spread of ideas they considered "dangerous" (or whatever description they might provide). I think that's the mainstream cultural attitude in the USA today, and I think that's unfortunate. I wish that everyone would believe as I do, that free speech as a cultural value is important and should be honored and respected, especially when it's speech you disagree with.

But to the legal argument: When that "business" gets to be the size and scope of a company like Youtube, yes I do think some regulations (i.e. restrictions) on what they are allowed to impose on their users are reasonable. If we had a dozen small providers then I don't think there's any need for regulation there because the market competition will provide a powerful check on potential abuse, but Youtube is an entrenched behemoth with a giant moat. At that scale, the amount of power they have over the people is immense, and IMHO approaches that of the government, and therefore there need to be some checks on that power.

I do also think the "compelled speech" defense for Youtube et al is a bit of a stretch. I agree that compelled speech is not ok and is just as bad as restricted speech. However, I do see a difference between being a communication service and someone being compelled to say certain speech. I would strongly oppose an attempt to compel Youtube the company to say something, but I don't think somebody having a channel that is clearly attributed to themselves and not to the parent company, is the equivalent of forcing Youtube the company to say something specific.

For example, imagine a world where the telephone system operators got to decide which speech was permitted on their phone lines. They had people listening in the conversation and "moderating" by cutting off the live feed if the topic veered into something they disagreed with, and any voicemails/recordings made were also deleted and scrubbed so the recipients wouldn't hear the wrong think. In that scenario would you defend the rights of the phone company not to host "compelled" speech that they disagree with? Compelled speech would be forcing the company themselves to say something. Them passing the electricity on the wire (aka being a "dumb pipe") is not the same thing.

I also think the argument falls apart when taken to it's logical extent. Who decides what speech they are "compelled" to host? If I make a Youtube video and say "I support <presidential candidate not favored by the company>" are they being compelled to say that? I don't think so.