Why Google Should Be Able To Censor Political Opponents
Internet companies censoring political oppositions has become publicized more and more as of late. If it was Project Veritas exposing Twitter or PragerU's lawsuit with Youtube most of the social media titan have been exposed for silencing particular views. Silenced pockets are calling for action, but it that really liberty?
While I think most agree censoring people is detrimental to their platform, as a private business these companies have the right to do with their platforms as they chose. We the public were not the ones to sink millions and endless hours into developing said technology.
Now it gets much trickier when talking about a company violates its terms and services as it appears may be the case in the PragerU lawsuit. The Libertarian party has for the most part avoided contract law, but I do see a case that a government has the responsibility to protect parties in a contract while still protecting freedom.
While no government should be able to dictate what the content of the contract can/or should contain, it should be able to enforce that both parties follow. It would be almost impossible to distinguish personal property if contracts could be voided so easily.
Who's to say I really have to give you my house after I sign that piece of paper? Why do I need to follow my NDA? It could easily become a slippery sloop if we ignore contract law. But at the same time in the name of liberty we need to protect all contracts the same. That means your mortgage agreement must be enforced with the same vigor as the Youtube Content Policy.
Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, ect. all have the right to censor whoever they want to their own demise. Let the free market handle it likewise. But if they are going to make participants sign an agreement, than they have to fulfill their own side.