No dopey, you aren't.

Except if you complain they block your tweets and cancel your account. What's that proof of?

Private companies being free to control access to and content published on their privately-held services?

And of course there is no law against you building your own.

Only because they are afraid allowing free people to make up their OWN minds.
Also, the social media outlets are exempt from being sued for libel. Not quite fair, now is it.

And your username is perfect. You want to control what people see, read, and hear...a real control freak.

Up yours!

Actually it's a publicly traded company that takes government money that put itself under the "platform" laws that protect it from indemnification in the event someone does a crime on their platform. Part of this law is they don't get to choose their content.

That's my point. They take advantage of that deal. You call that fair?

Its fair if they follow the law, they don't. They ban people and they ban videos and posts.

That's my point, again. They hide behind the protection of immunity from being held to the same standards as everyone else has to abide by.

Actually they just have enough money to tie up court cases against them until the plaintiff runs out of money. Personally I'd sue the government for not enforcing the law. would probably be more effective.

Being publicly traded doesn't change the fact that it's privately owned, and just because they can't be legally held liable for the content their users publish doesn't mean they have a legal obligation to allow access or host any user's content.

You're free to make your own, control it as you see fit, and sell shares if you're unsatisfied with their service.

Actually the law they are working under literally says they can't pick and choose what content they allow. They are required by law to allow all legal content.

I'm sure you can back that claim up with a reference to the USC?

"For purposes of the first limitation, relating to transitory
communications, “service provider” is defined in section 512(k)(1)(A) as “an entity
offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online
communications, between or among points specified BY A USER, of MATERIAL OF THE USER'S CHOOSING, WITHOUT MODIFICATION to the content of the material as sent or received.”"
from https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
Notice the capitalized text. The user gets to choose not the provider.
We already know you can't discriminate your customers based on their race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, or age. So if they must allow everyone on, and they can't edit or modify the content a user posts, guess what. By banning people they are discriminating, by removing content that is not illegal, they are violating 512(k)(1)(A) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

While that doesn't contain compulsory language, more importantly it doesn't apply to interactive services at all, because it specifically targets "service providers" (ISP) which provide connections to the internet.

Social networks operate under the interactive computer service rules in 47 USC § 230 which also contain no compulsory language. The indemnification you referred to earlier can be found in section (c) along with blanket protection to restrict access and availability to material the provider considers objectionable regardless of whether it's constitutionally protected.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

They put themselves under the protections of 512(k)(1)(A) in court cases. That's how they get out of legal responsibility and it clearly states they cannot alter content.

Restricting access to altering content are wildly different things, both tangibly and legally.

Regardless of whether they've cited 512(k)(1)(A), having done so would have no bearing on the ability of interactive services described in 47 USC § 230 to restrict access to or availability of content.

TLDR; social networks legally have carte blanche when it comes to who can access them and what content they allow to be published on their sites, while ISPs are legally prohibited from letting you access any legal content you want.

If you don't like how existing social networks control content, build your own.

Not really. They use 512(k)(1)(A) in court cases to prove they can't be held legally accountable for content found on their site as long as they remove it when they become aware of it.
The link CtrlFreq cites (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230) doesn't do anything except require that providers tell their users that they can filter content on their end using software. It also says they aren't liable for content on their platforms added by their customers.

Nonsense - farmers aren't concerned with the political noises their livestock make, it's all about getting the meat (you) to market (advertisers, brands) with the least amount of spoilage (associating brands with undesirable content).

That said they aren't exempted from libel laws, they're platform operators which protects them from being party to the libel their users commit, just like how Comcast can't be sued if you pirate movies or music using their cable service.

pfft