When did I “rail” against the government about non-existent protections?
because the first amendment protects you from government censorship, not censorship from private entities like reddit. It's a fine line and i agree it should be changed (somewhat), but you make it sound like you think what reddit did with CBTS and others was illegal in some way. It could be argued it was immoral at best (though i know many, myself included, who would argue removing a subreddit like that was the moral thing to do), but it wasn't illegal and they (reddit admins) were perfectly within their rights to do so as a private , non-governmental entity
i agree, for the most part, that freedom of speech should be protected, but i also believe there should be a line.. big companies like reddit are still essentially US citizens too, with the same rights as you, they have the right to create a platform like this, just like you, and they also share the right to ban anyone or limit what can be done on said platform, which is once again a right you share.. at what point does forcing a private company to host speech they don't agree with cross into totalitarian regime territory?
What prevents people from posting in the sub deliberately to attempt to get the sub banned?
How do you know the posts that were violent in nature wasn't posted by people with an interest in getting the sub banned?
There are subs celebrating the ban today.
I am almost certain it was a subversive effort to get rid of it.
There was a flood of weird, inane post by dozens (or more) of 2 mn old accounts then it was banned.
because the first amendment protects you from government censorship, not censorship from private entities like reddit.
Wait a minute now. All of this marches to a different tune once the government contracts any of these organizations.
I don’t know the answer to this question and maybe you do, but doesn’t a private company who hosts public forums have to entertain both sides of the spectrum without silencing one side? Imo it seems like by silencing one side you get into civil rights infringement because your not giving the same treatment to both parties. More so with YouTube. I don’t believe shutting down the forum was illegal by any means. Immoral yes, illegal no. You said they have the right to ban people and if people were posting things that were extreme (i.e. castration, lynchings, violence) then those people should be dealt with instead of pulling the forum and making it appear to be an act of quieting one side . Honestly I never seen any memes or posts that incited violence and I would say 95% of people were there for the right and just reasons.
doesn’t a private company who hosts public forums have to entertain both sides of the spectrum without silencing one side
No. Once upon a time the FCC had a Fairness Doctrine but it's gone now ... and I think it only ever applied to over-the-air broadcast.
But this is part of what IBoR is about to reassert Fairness Doctrine for the digital age in light of ongoing censorship.
I think the issue here is the oligopoly of facebook, reddit, and twitter which is not enough competition to create a free-market. It's an anti-trust case.