Okay, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough, and I'm trying to look at both sides of this debate from a slightly different angle, so I could see it being confusing. You say that freedom of speech is protected under 1A, but that it doesn't apply to what a corporation allows on its website. That is the problem, and maybe this goes against my "free speech" cred (I'm not a purist or an absolutist), but I think there should be carve-outs against corporate speech, to protect individual speech. When we look at telecommunication companies, there are all sorts of regulations and rules enforcing neutrality. Despite the fact that they're a private entity, they own the cables and the servers, the speech that travels through them is not theirs to police, and nor should it be in my opinion. Social media companies are a slightly different beast, but the internet has completely revolutionized what we think of as the public square, I see no reason not to reevaluate how our rights should apply in a new age, especially when you think about all the laws and court decisions about free speech which were made after the invention of mass media and telecommunications in the early 20th century.

On one side of the debate, we have the "no freeze peach" crowd, which seems to take the point of view that corporations should have ultimate control in what the boundaries of free speech are (political speech, hate speech, advertising speech, you name it); then, we have the "freeze peach" crowd which seems to argue to varying degrees for an individual right to expression, which would contravene the corporate right. If we frame the debate as "no freeze peach" people want civil discussions where women and minorities are welcome, and the "freeze peach" people want the right to yell "FAGGOT" where ever they want, that's disingenuous, and it does a massive disservice to the debate that I think we should be having, questioning the limits of corporate power.

Maybe this is just an issue of transparency. I posted this:

a while back and I think it raises a valid point, Facebook doesn't disclose its content restrictions. Facebook has no qualms about removing content for any reason, moral or immoral; they have no respect for the universal human right to freedom of expression because no one forces them to, and it's more profitable to censor at the behest of governments and corporations. Here in the US, Facebook clearly restricts content, but they don't even bother to say what that content is. I'm not arguing that yelling a slur is somehow tantamount to an inalienable and universal human right, or that Facebook should have no control over the content of their severs, but I do think there should be more transparency about how and why corporations filter people's speech, and maybe even limits on the types of speech and circumstances under which they're controlled.

rd95 made a good point in that post, saying people are free to not use Facebook, which is true, mostly. At least here in the western world, we have a fairly open market with plenty of choices (here we are on hubski), and only a handful of large corporate players in the social media field, but in other markets, which aren't so open, Facebook is working hard to cultivate a social media monopoly; I have no doubt they would do it here too if they could. Perhaps this just comes down to an issue of culture; social media users who are only interested in sharing cat pictures or Toyota and Pizza Hut advertisements are probably not going to be concerned with the threat of political censorship, so the idea of "Who is empowered to censor you?" simply doesn't resonate with them. I suppose it's just a sign of the times, but I think that's only half the story; when you look at the people who are flooding into voat or hubski, the dearth of young people using Facebook, and how heated discussions of "freeze peach" get, I think people do have a latent recognition of how important and valuable communication is.

It's a completely reasonable expectation that communities give users tools to manage and control the speech that they're exposed to. I am extremely sympathetic to the idea that hateful or offensive speech has a chilling effect on the participation of women and minorities; when we look at all the advantages of democracy, the big and obvious time-worn downside is tyranny of the majority, and if we are to expect a democratic mechanism to police speech, this is an issue that we should be concerned about. At the same time, if our reaction to the tyranny of majority speech is to seek out a benevolent dictator, someone empowered with absolute control over the boundaries of speech, then I think we need to take a very careful and cautious look at that benevolent dictator. Corporations pursue profit above all else, and they will be happy to enforce civility insofar as it is profitable; however, I think it is a mistake to think they're doing it because they're concerned about the participation of women and minorities. Furthermore, without legal limitation, unaccountable and opaque control over the "political correctness" of speech can potentially function as little more than a smokescreen for censorship and oppression.

It's easy to support unaccountable and opaque control of speech when it feels like it's in your favor, but when the shoe is on the other foot, what then? #BlackLivesMatter is a great hashtag, everyone should support the idea that black lives matter as much as the lives of any other race, but if Facebook, Twitter, Reddit decide to block #BlackLivesMatter (as is their right to do so) because [insert reason here] (not like they even need to give a reason), would your feelings change? I think social media companies understand the Streisand effect, and currently, that is the biggest thing which ties their hands as far as censorship of a popular political movement goes, insofar as it could have a knock-on effect on their bottom line. The fact of the matter is, I think there will be political movements (there already have been some), here and abroad, that threaten powerful vested interests, both governments and private capital, and I think the open question is, how much control will they be able to exert over communication in social media, to subvert the movement and protect themselves. Freedom of speech is a very broad general idea, but in practice, we have to remember what its purpose is.

This has been a pretty long and rambling comment, but I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from here. Lastly, just to add, I'm under no illusions that our current political climate or justice system is likely to pass laws or interpret the constitution in ways that empower individuals at the expensive of corporate capital power, so what I think should happen is probably pretty far from what is likely to happen. Also, I'm as far from a lawyer as you can get, so I'd be happy to see to see a formal critique of my ideas from a legalistic standpoint. Whether 1A could simply be interpreted differently, or perhaps a full amendment is required, is debatable; I think Citizens United is another free speech issue which deserves to be reexamined by society, I could probably write at length about that as well.