>>572475

Remember, those rights are rights that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe upon. If the government were to say to Twitter that they can't determine who is part of their platform, that would actually be against Twitter's first amendment right.

Free speech on platforms owned by private parties is NOT a right we have.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google are private companies. We have no more a right to free speech in them then you do at any other business. THEY have a First Amendment right to prevent your speech.

Either the government operates it's own Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google,s or decentralized platforms that cannot be controlled by a single point are the real answer.

But an IBOR would help until these platforms are built and ready to scale to the size of these huge services.

>>597520

This is a good article.

The large Internet content services (Twitter/Facebook/YT/Google), along with the MSM, are engaged in a political agenda. This means they should be treated as political organizations by the FEC, subject to election law and disclosure requirements.

This issue is way larger than "net neutrality". It's good that something's out there on the petition site, but I am concerned about the language of the petition. It's actually unconstitutional. But since it's a petition, and not a law, I'm sure it will get reworked before it goes into a bill.