> If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way
I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business that is refusing to work with you. They are a global monopoly. If your argument is there are more competitors, it doesn't matter if they all collude with each like master card does with visa to keep competitors off or does something to restrict people.
I already explained that. Building an alternative to gab isn't hard. Building alternatives to visa is a bar beyond average people or group of them. I can spin up an instance of mastodon within few minutes. I can't do the same for visa. I can't do the same for google cloud, cloudflare or any of the other monoliths.
This isn't applicable to all the situations but it is one of the factor differentiating gab from visa.
Another is the reach. If gab has the same number of users as youtube, then they should have something to let the public have a choice in what happens on the platform. I don't know where to define the user scale though. it's a hard problem. At 1 billion? Maybe when 90% of the country uses it?
not the same poster, but I think the point they were making had to do with the criticality of services and availability of alternatives?
Should the only grocery store in a town be able to refuse service to an individual that they don't like? It is unlikely a single individual is in a position to open a grocery store that can economically compete with the super-wall-mart.
How about a gas station in the middle of a desert where refusing service might literally result in death?
Instead of arguing criticality, can we reframe in terms of human rights? Political speech and life/health are generally considered basic human rights. Driving in the desert is not, so I don't see it as a valid comparison.
I find it hard to view Twitter as critical to expression of political speech, when other platforms exist... literal soapbox in a park is available, plus Gab, Facebook, mailing flyers, printing booklets, etc.
Access to food is certainly critical to ones life/health, so the government should play some role in ensuring reasonable access. However, the bar for intervention should be high. Is there no grocer at the next town over? No farmer's market? No Amazon Fresh? No ability to grow your own food? If none of those are viable options, then yes, the government likely should intervene in some way.
As noted above, driving (let alone driving in the desert) is not a basic right, so I could not in good faith argue for government intervention in the gasoline/fuel market.
I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business that is refusing to work with you. They are a global monopoly. If your argument is there are more competitors, it doesn't matter if they all collude with each like master card does with visa to keep competitors off or does something to restrict people.