> Cloud providers won't allow you to host certain content and if you buy your own server your internet provided can and will restrict the kind of content you can host.

yeah because in practice free speech isn't black and white like these internet discussions like to pretend it is. Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech?

there's nuance when defining free speech. Similar to the paradox of tolerance, you need to draw the line somewhere otherwise you'll be drowned out and taken over by speech that doesn't happen in good faith.

Child porn is not protected speech.

Every country has limits to freedom of speech. In the US you can't lie to a Federal Officer, you can't distribute or possess images of child abuse and you cannot advocate for a direct an imminent threat of an individual.

Those are all pretty reasonable. You CAN have a fictional representation of child abuse (writing/drawing) which is illegal in the UK, Australia and pretty much any other country except Japan.

Speech is tricky. Every country has limitations. China has freedom of speech in their constitution, so a law by itself is not enough to ensure you actually have that freedom.

Right free speech isn't straight forward.I think that is lost on alot of these commenters.

But there's two layers here, does free speech apply to social media. No it doesn't, it's not the government. What would be free speech violation is if you criticized the government then had the government tell the social media company to remove something.

Then there's the hypothetical, if social media companies had to listen free speech. Is spreading manipulative false information protected free speech? That seems abusive to me, close to slander.That's not protected speech.

> slander

Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections.

Under US law, yes, social media companies can do what they want in this particular case. But should they? They are massive and they control narratives. The fact that we have real freedom of speech proves this because we have other channels to discuss and bring attention to this issue.

There is another angle: Because of FB/Twitters massive size and control over their audiences, is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? It most certainly is.

> They are massive and they control narratives.

they might only control the narrative on twitter. only around 10% of americans would be a monthly active user on twitter. the world is not twitter, or social media. It might feel like that. Plently of people are still getting their news from other places. the article is still on nypost.

> is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference?

Lets say CNN decides to not publish this story, is that election interference? Now their viewers won't know about it.

You could also say its election interference to run an unfounded story in the first place

> "Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech?" - No, in that specific case it would clearly violate the rights of individuals depicted in the content you are hosting and therefore must be taken down.