Ironic isn't it how when FOX news and Murdoch were the scary threat to free speech and "something must be done about it" was the mantle of many liberals,
now that the internet is the leading media distribution medium along with a smartphone in every hand our so called liberals are all for big business corporate rights, as long as their sacred cows are protected.
But there is a bright side to this, thanks to liberals defense of adult entertainment as a constitutional right.
You have to google it because the over restrictive filters prevent a link from being posted, on a liberal leaning site no less.
Are you talking about something specific there, or just projecting? Because I think you're just claiming people were saying something while not understanding what they were actually saying.
And we can see exactly why they were warning people about Murdoch's media (FYI, people are mad because a certain political party has been using it as a propaganda machine for their claims, which often have been alarmingly not for freedom). Although, I haven't seen much of people saying anything more than FOX is trash and people should know better than to watch it, or that they hate the bullshit that they spread, so I think you're grossly mis-representing people's actual points. That and when they knowingly have touted lies (which they have also been critical when other media has done the same). Which plenty of times has gotten far enough that legal action got them to retract it (because unsurprisingly them knowingly spouting lies, kinda ends up being illegal).
No, that's not an accurate depiction of what Net Neutrality is. In fact, every person I know of that pushes for it, says its specifically so that everything
isn't controlled by giant corporations. Kinda baffling that you're also trying to spin people being critical of and calling for sites to be policing their users, like Twitter doing (or rather were critical of Twitter for not doing) something about the harassing trolls and people on there only to stir up shit (that then bitch whenever that happens to them), as being "pro big business". Just because people defend their right to do that does not make them big supporters, it just means people view it as a private service that should get those rights.
Its bizarre that people like you are acting like these companies should be beholden to government protections for individuals, whilst ignoring that the 1st Amendment you keep claiming these sites are trampling on, actually has been legally defended by the Supreme Court to do what these sites are doing (that is to say, if people are using their "free speech" to threaten another individual, that is not protected). Generally people who are posting hatefilled garbage on there, have been known to be sending threats (they often do it in private though, which is why I just roll my eyes at the assholes that cry about getting banned when they're almost always not being honest about what they were all up to).
Yes, I know there's more to it than just the threat stuff, but its not like the 1st Amendment is a total free for all even with regards to the government's regulation of it.
What if no-one wants to "house" your thoughts and ideas? Housing and internet content conduits have a lot more in common than at first glance. One is just more "Meta" than the other. But both are important.
Edit: From another perspective, these places (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) are "virtual public spaces".
If it's not legal to discriminate real public spaces, then why should it be legal to discriminate virtual ones?
To very simply answer your analogy. The
government doesn't own or operate the websites in question. They
are not "public" places. You need to stop trying to claim they are.
To address your other point about this being no different from Net Neutrality, you're again, just simply put, wrong on your analogy. In fact I can't even fathom how you're making such analogies since Net Neutrality is specifically about defending the right of people being able to start their own alternatives should they not be happy with how other sites operate. That's why based on website's guidelines, its not censorship or a 1st Amendment issue. But it quickly will become one if ISPs are allowed to discriminate.
The reason ISPs should not be allowed to is because they are expressly given specific rights by the government. That's why ISPs doing it becomes an issue, but private websites doing it wouldn't. One has been expressly given control by the government (and is also expressly oversaw by the government, via the FCC, and agency specifically created to regulate communications). Websites are wholly independent private entities (with obvious exceptions to those expressly operated by government). Net Neutrality and freedom to do something about websites go together. There's also the issue that you can very easily choose what websites you use, but you typically have little choice about ISPs, because of the government's method of handling them.
Also, I take it you people missed how they're waiting President's signature to pass a law that makes websites liable for content posted by their users?