When the “big tech” companies prevent me from posting on this message board, or prevent me from having my own website, or prevent me from developing my own app that rivals Twitter, then let me know. I’ll be against that.
By eg removing your app from their app stores so people can’t download it or get updates, and suddenly cancelling your hosting on their servers?
Ditto. This is a silly objection which amounts to nothing more than ‘people on the other team support it, therefore I’m against it’.
Yes, big companies certainly could (and do, in some cases) aid bad leaders in doing bad things. They shouldn’t do this. But most of the recent bannings (Trump, My Pillow guy, etc.) are good things. There’s no way, with the existence of the First Amendment, to restrict these companies ability to do this (at least on the US), and this is a good thing because government shouldn’t have that power.
So the recent bannings don’t indicate at all any greater propensity that big companies might have to aid bad leaders than before.
AIUI Trump only wanted/tried to remove protection from those who appended addition information to messages, and/or selectively hid messages depending on content, after they did those things to his tweets. So the aim was to stop them doing this, and they would retain protection if they stopped. Whereas the Democrats are in favour of this kind of editorial interference and want to force tech companies to do more of it.
We’ll see. As @DSeid said, the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.
That’s really not what we have been talking about here.
Do you have a cite for this? Who is in favor of “forcing” tech companies to do more of this?
Examples:
In its response to the letter, Facebook noted that it faces pressure from both parties.
“We’ve faced criticism from Republicans for being biased against conservatives and Democrats for not taking more steps to restrict the exact same content,” company spokesman Andy Stone said in an email. “Our job is to create one consistent set of rules that applies equally to everyone.”
Russo contrasted Facebook’s approach to election misinformation with Twitter’s, which has more aggressive policies for labeling potentially misleading information. He claimed that while Twitter prevented election misinformation from Trump from being spread widely, “Facebook continued to actively promote the posts in feeds.”
In all these cases Democrats are pushing for more censorship/editorial control by the social media companies.
Obviously not all think as I do, but my take is to not only care about what happens to “me” or “recently”. My take is that if we only care about the principle after we are personally restricted, or after the negative impact are aimed against expression that we think are “good”, then we are assured of caring too late.
The fact that Trump and Lindell and a host of others are obvious odious excuses of humanity are to me immaterial to the importance of the principle, to the dangers (as Nalvany argues) of neglecting the risks of allowing a very few to control so much of the public square. We have not seen the last wannabe autocrat here I am sure. The time to guard against the dangers that Nalvany sounded is before then, and before the power of the few is arbitrarily aimed at you or me as the voices of dissent.
I again understand the perspective of those who think that we are not there, so no worries.
Or if regulations meant to rein in “big tech” instead raise the barriers to entry for smaller messageboards and social media sites, leaving the “big tech” as the only remaining players.
So then you’re taking back your assertion that Democrats are trying to “force” tech companies to do this? If so, good. Yes, some Democrats have criticized tech companies… but criticism is not remotely the same thing as government attempting to force them to do something.
But the danger of government directing tech companies what they can and can’t do with regards to the speech they allow on their own property and platforms is far, far greater than what tech companies might choose to allow or not for business/profit reasons, isn’t it? At least IMO.
No I’m not. They are criticising them, and they are threatening anti-trust investigations and removal of the liability shield if they don’t comply.
The first is what is happening right now.
As an aside, this is one of the things I hated most about the “Political compass”-style quizzes: they assumed that if you didn’t like something, you’d support a law to ban it, so most things you thought were just wrong about society raised your authoritarian score.
Whereas it’s pretty obvious you can use your bully pulpit to oppose something with words while not wanting to outlaw it.
I only wish this was obvious. Every single time I have mentioned worries about freedom of speech on this site, without fail people jump straight to regulations as the only possible remedy, ignoring the changing social attitudes which are the real problem.
So, you don’t want to change laws, you want to change people?
While I don’t agree with the first, I really disagree with the latter.
Regulations are not synonymous with “outlawing it”.
So you disagree with eg trying to make people less racist? 
Does not compute. “Forcing” means making certain actions illegal. The regulations proposed/described in your links do not remotely force Facebook or other tech companies to only ban voices Democrats don’t like, or anything at all in the same ballpark.
Cite? Anti-trust regulations and such are an entirely separate issue from whether Twitter can/should ban someone who spreads lies about the election or promotion of violence.
Let’s lay this out clearly – @DemonTree, what do you think Democrats are doing wrong? Please be very specific. So far I still don’t understand.