D
Deleted member 499399
Guest
I agree with what you said except the last paragraph. I do not think it’s reasonable to allow the government to take control over social media content just because Twitter took a pro trans stance with their language policy. There are plenty of websites people can go to to spew hateful garbage freely to one another. The freedoms we would be giving up are not justified.The quoted portion highlights your misunderstanding of rights.
A right conveys a corollary duty. Welfare is a right. If you ask for welfare, the state has a positive obligation to provide you with it.
Free speech is not a right. It is a liberty. Liberties do not convey corollary duties. Nobody has an obligation to give you free speech. The state is simply not permitted to take an action which infringes on your ability to express yourself.
Non-state actors, by definition, cannot violate your "rights of free expression", since no such rights exist. Only the government is limited in the manner in which it can infringe on your ability to express yourself.
The above highlights Rogan's central concern. Facebook and Google are large and powerful like government, yet lack the same restrictions of government. You say the internet is big, and that "Shouldn’t I just find another medium to express my views?", but I'm going to suggest to you that reasonable people can disagree about this point.