> In a free speech absolutist world, there’s no liability to worry about in the first place.
Says who? While it is an admittedly poor label, there are few, if any "free speech absolutists" who advocate removing all limits on speech. Usually they would accept some level of law restricting fraud or perjury.
> I’m not a free speech absolutist
Neither am I, I think it is a stupid label.
> It is fine if we protect some types of speech, and selectively acknowledge the right of platform-owners to not broadcast some types of speech.
There is a very large difference between allowing (or requiring) companies to censor specific types of speech in an open and content neutral fashion, and giving companies carte blanche to not broadcast anything they want without any legal responsibility because of those companies "free speech rights". There are of course, also numerous shades of grey between these extremes.
The "you have to let companies censor whoever they want because that is their right" argument is logically inconsistent.
Says who? While it is an admittedly poor label, there are few, if any "free speech absolutists" who advocate removing all limits on speech. Usually they would accept some level of law restricting fraud or perjury.
> I’m not a free speech absolutist
Neither am I, I think it is a stupid label.
> It is fine if we protect some types of speech, and selectively acknowledge the right of platform-owners to not broadcast some types of speech.
There is a very large difference between allowing (or requiring) companies to censor specific types of speech in an open and content neutral fashion, and giving companies carte blanche to not broadcast anything they want without any legal responsibility because of those companies "free speech rights". There are of course, also numerous shades of grey between these extremes.
The "you have to let companies censor whoever they want because that is their right" argument is logically inconsistent.