Censorship From The State Vs. Censorship From The Website. Which Is Worse?

The answer is rather simple.


Discussions over censorship should include a definitive defintion:

The entire definition of censorship has the three sections of it equally discussed:

-Politically unacceptable material.
-A threat to security.
-And obscence material.


For example, on 04/22/2020, a number of openly (self identified, even) "ancaps" were calling a mutual of mine racist and transphobic insults/remarks, and were reported by several people. Accusations of censorship were brought against me, and several of those who did report the incident, as it did violate the terms of service, which are signed by everyone, before they join. They understood, that some actions they take, may get them banned, and they ultimately did it anyway. In the end, they got banned, or suspended for a week, justifiably, whether or not you like it. If you don't want to get reported/banned for it, don't do it, simple.

(Yes, reporting someone for violating the TOS (terms of service) is censorship, by the definition above, and is indeed justified since it isn't hard to not use slurs against people.)

Many who feel that social media companies unfairly target conservatives for their views have called it censorship, and develop a victim status that rivals some people on the left and argue for stricter regulation of social media companies. There are also those who object to places like Tumblr for removing NSFW (not safe for work) material from their site, and claim an internet bill of rights is needed (despite platform access not being a right). Libertarians and those who do not agree with giving the government (state, local or federal) any more power generally make the following contentions:

-Conservatives aren't the only ones affected by censorship, there are leftists, liberals, and other non conservatives who have been banned despite not violating the terms of service.

-The system does make mistakes, granted. It incumbent upon those claiming that they were *personally* targeted. Speculation doesn't equal evidence.

-Access to a social media platform is not a human right, and the first amendment does not include a right to a social media platform. (Any judge who rules otherwise clearly either failed to read the Constitution or is a Judicial legislator).

-Censorship by a private business is absolutely trivial compared to a government force imposing the censorship.

-If you do not like the terms of service, feel free to leave. If you will not agree to the contract, they are more than justified in not allowing your account to remain up.

The common retort is a law defining publishers vs platforms, which *my* retort is that the law should be repealed and replaced with the following:

"Social media companies are immune from libel suits in relation to material published by individual users."

Another thing that is worthy of pointing out, is that Google gets subsidies. And with Google operating YouTube despite the fact that YouTube makes them no net profit, which allows the anti regulation crowd to argue that simply removing the subsidies would force Google to stop their actions, in terms of how they conduct themselves. (Before you mention a monopoly, here's the issue: like a two party system, it's only defeated if people actually make an effort to do so).

To answer the question: The Government cenorship easily defeats the private company censorship, since the Government actually has power to use violence (and hide behind the law as an excuse) while corporation can't claim to be the law. And, the violation of free speech by the Government violates the U.S Constitution, unlike a corporation censoring you. Keep in mind I used "violate" in reference to the Government, and "censor" by corporations (the word 'censor' applies to both), since the First Amendment does not apply to corporations censoring you.

#1A text:

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't matter how much you try, you cannot read the word "corporation" into the First Amendment. Try all you like. You just can't. Whether you're a strict or loose constructionist, no amount of mental gymnastics could be used to argue that corporations are included in the First Amendment regarding social media/

Governments have killed more people than social media could ever try, and considering that social media has never murdered anyone, they lose the death count 100-0%, and considering the fact that social media companies can't take anymore action against you than just deactiving your account, there is nothing to prove that social media companies control our lives.