That’s not true. Your argument is the same as yelling fire in a theater, and no one ever yells fire in a theater. These rare if not none existent incidences are used to curb first amendment rights of everyone. That’s why we have no free speech zones. 

Another one I love to hear is “it’s on private property so it’s ok.” you can’t break federal law just because it’s on private property. You can’t deal drugs or human traffic or kill someone just because it’s on private property, but somehow you can curb free speech. But keep thinking what you think. You will totalitarianism in no time.

Resteemed by @resteembot! Good Luck!
The resteem was paid by @whatsontrend
Check @resteembot's [introduction post](https://steemit.com/resteembot/@resteembot/how-to-use-resteembot-updated-2017824t202525149z) or the other great posts I already resteemed.

It's good to see you writing quality posts with a message again.

Say whatever you want to say anywhere or everywhere else like social medias. Just don't go to someone property and talk trash

Hi @gank. I'm not exactly clear on your argument here, so please feel free to correct me. The way I see it (under the current situation - that is, when comparing, let's say, Steemit to Facebook) - ALL of the argument of ethics is NULLIFIED (in my opinion) once manipulative tactics are used by the corporations in question. I actually listened to Jack from Twitter on the Joe Rogan show, and OVERALL found his perspective on the censorship issue to be REASONABLY sound at its essence. That is, that he is constantly ADJUSTING the Twitter policies in light of new evidence of what works and what doesn't work, in terms of fairness). After listening to him , I TRULY BELIEVE that his INTENTION is in the right place, and I WOULD support a certain degree of "administrative control" based on the "private property" concept ONLY IF platforms like Twitter, #CA'sbook, etc were not PROVEN to have used (and/or CURRENTLY BE using) algorithms which are POLITICALLY biased, and NOT biased based primarily on protecting the PHYSICAL safety (and basic civil rights) of users. This past week  I launched a FORMAL boycott of Facebook, with an final post announcement the commencement of my boycott, and have now begun the process of sending a few minutes daily deleting ALL content I have put up on Facebook over the past decade. This is in line with my argument that these private companies DO NOT have the right now manipulate people. Protecting people's CONSTITUTIONAL rights is okay with me for private organizations, but manipulation is NOT. The right to not be DECEIVED is also a Consititutional right, and at the core of ALL of other basic rights granted by the constitution. Hope this comment is well received, and that I have not misinterpreted your point...

Hey @gank. I mostly agree with you. A private business is allowed to associate or not associate with whoever they choose...to a point. I don't have the right to come in your place of business and start yelling about whatever I want. I think the real issue here with places like FB, twitter, YouTube, etc, is discrimination. They claim to be a platform rather than a media outlet with editors. 
At the moment, these social media sites have no objective standard. They simply say they don't allow hate speech. They then define hate speech as anything they personally don't like. Sense we know these sites lean far to the left (by their own admission), it's funny how anyone on the right is deemed hateful for simply giving their perspective, while those on the left can say almost anything with zero recourse. 
When asked about an objective standard, they always refuse to give one. So when you see them almost always banning or punishing people from only 1 side of the political isle, it becomes a clear case of discrimination. 
Second, if these platforms are in fact legally viewed as"platforms " (which they claim to be), that means they can not edit out content, unless legally required to do so (similar to a phone company). 
 The minute a company starts to edit its content, they are by definition no longer a platform. They become a media outlet responsible for the content on their site. This is the last thing any social media company wants. 
So you see, it's not quite as simple as you're making it. These social media companies want all the benefits of being a platform, while still being able to edit out the political content they don't like. It doesn't work that way. Either you're a platform, or a media outlet...you can't be both.

Very well written and informative article!