I don't really agree with the statement that they are trying to fix human behaviour. There's nothing wrong with Vivaldi stating "this is my house, these are my rules", they are not the government.
Nobody owes you the right to use their megaphone. Demanding that the government enforce your right to use their platform as a vessel for your opinion seems every bit as bad as the government silencing you. Forced speech is no better than forced silence.
>Nobody owes you the right to use their megaphone.
Please, let's not switch metaphors. It's not a megaphone, it's a house.
> Demanding that the government enforce your right
The government is the one who makes the "house" into private property in the first place.
Democracy and freedom of speech doesn't mean anything if there's nowhere to speak. If you don't have an actual power to speak _including_ all material prerequisites of communication, then how are you a citizen? Why should you accept liberal democracy?
That analogy falls over because IRL we have public, government-owned property where there is no private owner. The sidewalk in front of your house is only owned by the government, it is nobody's "house".
The internet lacks this because we have no government infrastructure that directly hosts messages. There is no internet equivalent to standing on a street-corner with a sign, using only the tools of communication that you own, in a public space.
If I run an offensive protest inside of a mall, I will be asked to leave and ultimately thrown out. In this sense, Facebook is the digital equivalent to the mall - they own the space.
The difference is that there is no street in front of the mall I could use instead. Even if I set up my own server, I will have to connect it to my privately-owned ISP, install it at a privately-owned datacentre.
That, to me, is the only real difference. The internet has no spaces that aren't somebody's house, unlike meatspace.
But imho, the solution is to create public spaces on the internet, not to demand that private spaces become public ones against their will.
What you're referring to is called the "public forum."
In the USA, it's not only government-owned property that is considered a public forum.
E.g. Occupy Wall St was on private property (Zuccotti Park), but they couldn't be evicted for that -- because a park open to the public in that way is a public forum. (They were eventually evicted supposedly for health/sanitation reasons.)
> If I run an offensive protest inside of a mall, I will be asked to leave and ultimately thrown out. In this sense, Facebook is the digital equivalent to the mall - they own the space.
In fact, the public walkways in a privately-owned mall are considered a public forum.
No, he is not. This is literally just one statement, without any justification or deduction. If anything, this is the opposite of logic. The fact that said statement is utter nonsense is not ever than important any more in this context, because it failed way before that comes into play.
