Get your own web site and say whatever you want there. It's like $0-$5 a month. Bam! You've then decided you have a voice on the internet and aren't trapped in a co-dependent relationship with a social media company where you want them to carry your speech (and pay the cost to do so), because of a sense of learned helplessness. You have the power to get your own website that is accessible by any web browser in the free world, an unimaginably huge path to speaking to billions of people that those of us born before the internet could barely have imagined possible.

Get a web site. Say anything you want. Don't force other people to carry your speech (and pay the bill for it) when you can just do it yourself on your own site as an independent citizen that's not in a co-dependent relationship with someone else's social media site. Bobby's N64 Golden Eye forum shouldn't have to carry someone's rant about "The Jews" or whatever if it doesn't want to, nor should any other collection of folks that put together a company that grows larger than Bobby's N64 Golden Eye forums.

There are a lot of people who complain either about "censorship" or "supporting the alt-right" and they both want to petition some big company or the government to do something for them. Man... the answer is to get your own web site and say what you want there. Any path that is about making other sites do things the way you want... just further entrenches the power of those sites. It puts you in this weak, beseeching position where you beg other folks to do things with sites they own. The internet is ours. Social Media companies are not ours. Do up a web site. Heck, have an RSS feed. Host a Mastodon server or something if you wanna.

Do you not see how this destroys any social site, large or small? Anybody that wants to host a forum about RC Cars, or Tennis, or whatever, has to allow their site to be flooded with garbage and hate (because "common carrier"). Or, they can try to clean up the place so they can have civil conversations ("editorialize", "moderate"), but if they miss something, well, they are legally liable for whatever some rando on the internet spews on their site. It allows trolls and spammers to effectively shut down speech. Or, if Joe Blow wants to moderate his site, he must do so perfectly, because if he misses something, well... he's now responsible, in your eyes.

Do you not see how that is just not workable? I don't get how people think this makes sense or is a good way to regulate the internet.

Just let Facebook do whatever, and, like, don't use it because it's bad. "Oh, my family uses and I have to!" No. You're weak. Just don't use it and stop bitching about it. "It's evil, I need the government to save me from it's evil machinations." It's just a web site. Stop acting like an abused girlfriend that just can't leave.

I run a Nextcloud server at home. There is a browser plugin called Floccus I use that syncs my bookmarks back to my Nextcloud (but the plugin also works with Dropbox or other cloud locations). Anyways, using this plug-in keeps my bookmarks synchronized between any browsers or desktops I have it installed on. I could get away with just using the browser itself and the sync capabilities built in, but usually that means you are limited to 1 browser, and the sync is actually happening on Google or Mozilla's servers. I'd prefer to use my own server than rely on a 3rd party when I don't have to.

Everyone gets to curate the user content any way they want. You are focused on "scary corporations" without realizing the burden your scheme would force on everyone. I should not be forced to let trolls spam my personal forum to absolute unusability, pay to keep their content online or face legal consequences. It's absolutely absurd. Trolls can fuck off and make their own web page. That shit ain't at all difficult. You can easily get online for half the cost of a Netflix subscription. But no, can't expect that. Instead, any Joe Blow that hosts a web site where some friends chat has to be willing to host unlimited racist garbage and floods of spam or face the fucking legal system because you are worried about Mark Zuckerberg. Why should I have to face this burden? Why should anyone?

I'm totally OK with super rich people doing kinda crazy pet projects that nobody else would have money to do. People like to complain when rich people go to space. People like to complain when rich people try to improve global health. People like to complain when rich people just exist. They say it isn't fair. They say they have better ideas of what they'd do with the money. Meh.

I live in Montcalm county in Michigan. My local state house Representative is Pat Outman, one of the GOP co-sponsors of this bill. My local state senate Senator is Rick Outman, who is his dad. It's all some real rinky-dink Dukes of Hazzard level embarrassing BS.

Censoring all dissent? Hyperbole much? Jesus, tell a white supremacist or insurrectionist to get lost and all the sudden it's "Oh no! We must all obey and any dissent will get us crushed! I'm being oppressed!" even though I can go on Twitter and follow maybe every US politician in office, if I wanted to torture myself in such a way. I mean, I know that one congresswoman who believes Democrats are drinking the blood of babies and that Sandy Hook never happened got suspended for 12 hours, so you're right. It's clearly the end times and censorship is out of control. What's next? They start censoring the weather and pictures of my puppy? This is a serious, mature concern. Also, HTML is impossible, and no one knows how to host a web site, apparently. I need the government to force companies spew my bullshit because I couldn't buy a copy of "HTML For Dummies" and feel deeply aggrieved. Life is so hard.

Not letting people be on your property isn't the same as banning speech, but I think you already know that and have decided to ignore it for whatever reason. Maybe you feel private companies should be forced to broadcast white supremacists' messages for some dumb reason?

It used to be that nobody thought banning white supremacists from a given platform, etc. was a big deal. Now that the President sent some of those folks to the Capitol & a crazy Q Anon congresswoman got elected, people feel we need to re-assess everything. I mean, not in a way like, "Wow, look at how mainstream crazy has become", but more like "You're censoring the other side!" because I guess we're supposed to accept that "The Other Side" is this batch of nuts. Recommend they learn HTML and put up their own goddamned website and get some absurd slippery slope response, "Well, if they have the power to ban the Klan, what's to stop them from banning Grandma for posting her delicious cookie recipe?"

Shit's stupid.

Ever since the Internet happened, there have been millions and millions of websites filled with all kinds of information from all kinds of viewpoints from all over the entire goddamned world. We all decide what is acceptable on our own websites, in our own houses, and in our own businesses. If someone wants to know what "Stop the Steal" is, and they can't find out, maybe they are just stupid, or they're stuck on some weird locked down computer kiosk than only lets them browse Facebook and has closed them off from a world-wide network of information that was barely conceivable in my youth. The idea that Facebook shutting down "Stop the Steal" (a bunch of people who think the election was stolen, even though over 60 court cases were either lost, rejected, & found no credible evidence of it, including cases presided over by judges appointed by the President himself, and belief in which led to a ridiculous insurrection attempt), is some kind of dangerous censorship, when you can find out about it by just typing 3 words into any goddamned search engine, and can easily put up your own web site talking about it accessible to the entire goddamned world probably for free, but for no more than $5/month... seems, ridiculously overblown.

Companies have always decided what is acceptable on their platforms. You can't walk into Disney and scream "Poop!" at children all day, nor can you then complain that by the park allowing some speech but not your brilliant Poop speech that they are "editorializing" or whatever. You have always decided who is acceptable to have on your property. Do you feel companies should be compelled to provide a platform for someone regardless of the consequences of that person's speech until a court gives them permission to shut it down? What the hell kind of weird proposal is that? Dude can type stuff on his own web site, or start up an e-mail newsletter for Christ's sake.

Maybe before calling for execution, you could remind us of who exactly died again?