> Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with?
A business choose to offer 'carrying speech' service to public, so it should offer that service in impartial and fair manner. That is pretty basic consumer protection approach (at least in Europe, i have an impression that US has lower standards).
> Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed section
That is completely different / incomparable case. Social networks publicly offer service to anybody, while op-ed sections are individually offered on newspaper discretion.
I am ok with social networks to use their discretion on which messages they promote/recommend (as that is in principle discretion-based decision), but not for mechanistic functionality like 'distribute message to followers'.
> Are there any exceptions to your rule of not moderating, such as illegal content or violence against specific people?
It is acceptable if a service has rules and enforce them, but then it should also be acceptable to sue a service that does arbitrary moderation (either excessive outside of its own rules, or doing selective enforcement of rules).
Also, there is an argument that such rules should not be discriminatory.
A business choose to offer 'carrying speech' service to public, so it should offer that service in impartial and fair manner. That is pretty basic consumer protection approach (at least in Europe, i have an impression that US has lower standards).
> Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed section
That is completely different / incomparable case. Social networks publicly offer service to anybody, while op-ed sections are individually offered on newspaper discretion.
I am ok with social networks to use their discretion on which messages they promote/recommend (as that is in principle discretion-based decision), but not for mechanistic functionality like 'distribute message to followers'.
> Are there any exceptions to your rule of not moderating, such as illegal content or violence against specific people?
It is acceptable if a service has rules and enforce them, but then it should also be acceptable to sue a service that does arbitrary moderation (either excessive outside of its own rules, or doing selective enforcement of rules).
Also, there is an argument that such rules should not be discriminatory.