We already do... (in several other instances)
And have done so in the past off and on with various private entities when they control enough of the market share and become the de facto outlet for something that's thought of as a public service or function.
The "State Actor" concept, which was covered by the supreme court in the 1940's, and was defined as A) an entity, while technically "private", performing a "public function".
B) an entity performing a private function, but with coercion or influence with regard to how the function is performed.
Facebook and Twitter check both boxes.
Facebook and Twitter both serve as major vehicles for constituents to connect with politicians and candidates, serves as a way people get their polling locations, etc...
And government has coerced and influenced them with regards to company-specific policies. One high profile instance of that was when Elizabeth Warren asked Facebook to change their internal policies to prevent dissemination of climate misinformation.
The
Supreme Court disagrees with you here, as they have ruled that social media sites are not "state actors."
Also, if we use your logic, almost any newspaper would be a "state actor" as they used to provide the information about voting that social media now provides. Yet no one is going to claim the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any other newspaper is a "state actor" -- despite being the traditional "political speech forum" that you are claiming is being replaced by social media.
The key point here, typically to be a "state actor" they actually have to be working for the government, or at least providing a function that the government typically provides. So, for example, a private prison is a state actor. To get back to the Supreme Court case you were talking about, a sidewalk on private property -- since it is filling the need of public right of ways -- is something of a "state actor." Though, to be clear, while the sidewalk is considered a "state actor," the business is not; they merely have to provide public access (including protests) on the sidewalks on their property.
Merely providing voter information is not, by itself, a "government activity." If they were providing a polling place, the part of the business that was a polling place would be a "state actor." Providing a public service, like helping people find where to vote, is considered a public service, not an action of the state. Kind of like selling advertising is a "service" but does not mean the forum (newspaper, social media, etc) is endorsing or part of the business they are advertising.
“We asked Facebook leadership to close the loopholes that let climate disinformation spread on their platforms,” Senators Elizabeth Warren, Tom Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Brian Schatz said in a statement. “The future of our planet is at stake, and there should be no company too big, too powerful, and too opaque to be held accountable for its role in the climate crisis. Facebook is no exception.”
If "it's just a private entity, they make the rules, and everyone agrees to the rules when signing up" were the end-all argument, then Elizabeth Warren would've simply said "If you don't like that Facebook is allowing climate misinformation, then you just need to go build your own version of Facebook that doesn't"
No, politicians requesting something of social media does not make that business a "state actor." Businesses that responded to Pres. Trump's calls for building ventilators or masks did not become "state actors" because they started producing masks or ventilators.
Instead, I'd state what Republicans are trying to do to social media is socialism/communism -- by turning them into "state actors" by legislating what their policies are required to be.
As noted before, misgendering policies are one such example...
As pointed out, they are merely telling people to respect what people call themselves -- in essence, "be polite." There is no ban on discussing the topic.
I don't think my argument is stupid...you're acknowledging that people who made the disingenuous faux fairness (IE: everyone has to abide by the same set of rules, so what's the problem?) claim to try to suppress certain type so of marriage were making stupid arguments. I'm making an argument that shoots down the faux fairness justification. Both sides of that coin can't be stupid.
Unless you're of the position that "it's justifiable when it reinforces the things I like, but bad when it allows the things I don't"? I would hope not, because that would be a blatant double standard.
Just because I find the argument stupid doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to voice it. To the best of my knowledge, Twitter or Facebook doesn't ban that argument. Even if they do, that is their right as private companies, just like Christian Forum can ban "promotion of homosexuality."
To the other part...
Christian Forums isn't Twitter, there are plenty of other options out in the market place for this particular niche.
So why is there no talk of pursuing actions under monopoly laws against Twitter or Facebook? Your issue is, they are not monopolies as you are trying to claim.
If CF became so large that there were no close second in that space, and CF became one of the primary vehicles for politicians and candidates to connect with their people (to the point where it could have election impacts), then it'd be a different story.
No, sorry, your point doesn't fit. Which is it, is Twitter or is Facebook the "monopoly" in this case -- under what you are trying to claim, they both can't be the "primary vehicles for politicians and candidates." The very fact you have Facebook, Twitter, news (print, broadcast, cable, Internet), blogs, and even Christian Forums, shows there is no "monopoly" on political speech by any of them. This is why your argument ultimately fails. Yes, Twitter has a lot of "impact," as does Facebook, but so does Fox News.
In fact, Twitter or Facebook might be more comparable to Rush Limbaugh -- no one had a radio show, particularly one that dealt with politics, the size of his. Does that mean in the 90s the Democrats should have pushed laws to "moderate" Rush Limbaugh since he had a monopoly on political speech on the radio?
The very fact that people acknowledged (and expressed concern over) disinformation campaigns on Facebook and Twitter, and senators called Mark Z and Jack D up to capitol hill over the matter shows that they're acknowledging that there's something special about Facebook and Twitter (with regards to their reach and influence) that goes well beyond what other social media outlets can tout.
Yes, they are large and have wide reach -- just like Fox News does. Seriously, the fact that you have to lump Facebook and Twitter together makes your argument fail, as by having to list both shows that neither company has a "monopoly." Worse, to really make your claim, you have to lump Amazon in with them, since they have such a large share of Internet hosting -- which is what people tend to claim prevents rivals from growing.
Again, as I mentioned before, it's not that the "rules", on paper, are any different, it's that rules, in effect, (while remaining the same across the board) can be constructed in such a way that they negatively and disproportionately impact one particular group.
The example I used before was Voter ID laws... they're the same across the board for everyone, yet, it's very obvious that the rules themselves are being pushed in efforts to disenfranchise certain group of voters.
Again, fine. Of course, then you get back to the issue that Facebook and Twitter can create their own policies. If they only want to allow liberal speech, then that is their right -- of course they'd lose much of their "reach," as what makes them so large is that we get millions of people on both sides discussing issues.
The danger that I think you miss, if you remove the ability of Twitter and Facebook to control the content, then you also open the door to doing it to all media -- so (if he were alive) -- we could legislate what Rush Limbaugh can do with his show, since he had a similar "monopoly," and then you can start using the government to "censor" what can be said by news organizations like Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax (since we can lump all conservative cable news as a "monopoly" despite there being multiple companies) and the Washington Post and NY Times in print media for their "monopoly."
Either we allow free speech, including the right of companies to determine what speech they choose to allow and promote, or we run the risk of killing free speech.
