How do libertarians (and free speech advocates) deal with the issue of social media de-platforming being in contradiction with private company control?
I hear about the case of the wedding cake maker who refused service to the gay couple. People said ‘private companies should have the freedom to refuse service to anyone’.
Social media private companies deplatform and remove right wing or conservative voices. People say ‘they shouldn’t be allowed to de-platform.’
How is this contradiction resolved for supporters of free speech and private company control?
One resolution I can think of is the foundational libertarian principle that you should have the freedom to do as you wish as long as it doesn’t impede on other people’s freedoms. So being kicked off a platform for no reason goes against that principle.
Being kicked off because you violated the particular platform’s rules seems fair, but then you enter the issue of inconsistency in the application of the rules to some but not others.
Would this inconsistency be ‘allowed’ under a libertarian free speech mindset because the company is technically just doing what it wants?
Or is it moreso that unless you’re going to apply the rules equally then you’re impeding on the freedoms of some but not others, which is not ok? So to analogise the case of the cake maker, if they refuse service to all people wanting a gay marriage cake then that is their right, but if they served some gay weddings but not others that would be inconsistent application?
Curious what people think about this.
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society