Surely there is a middle ground: let businesses operate how they please so long as they follow the law, and have the law require them to act in a way which is considered reasonable. If you’re a business trying to sell something then you are required to be somewhat honest in how you represent the thing, especially if you are selling some kind of food. If you’re a bank then you are required to be fair to a certain extent in how you choose the customers you serve and what services you offer them.
I don’t see why a business that presents itself as a quasi-public space that is generally open to all at no cost should not have some duty to be faithful to the way it represents itself and to treat its users fairly.
> Surely there is a middle ground: let businesses operate how they please so long as they follow the law, and have the law require them to act in a way which is considered reasonable.
A lot of people would argue that is the situation we have now.
The government wasn't against twitter because they were looking like they were going to remove right wing stuff, they were angry because they were being fact checked.
If we are going to attribute emotions to governments, my bet would be fear. Political leaders and political parties rely on multiple international companies to handle daily operations, and the risk that they could be cut out at any time is being demonstrated.
People can try to convince politicians that there is no risk and that only obvious bad people will be targeted.
I don’t see why a business that presents itself as a quasi-public space that is generally open to all at no cost should not have some duty to be faithful to the way it represents itself and to treat its users fairly.