Yes, the properties of a person or organization are theirs, but if said organization wants their service to be considered as public places, like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook do, if they advertise it that way, then it has to be considered as such. People and organization can't have their cake and eat it too.

What Google, Twitter and Facebook are doing is more or less to try to usurp public places. They lure people into their services, saying they are the modern public places, then they use their power to control what people say within those de facto public places. You talk about collectivization, but what Google, Twitter and Facebook are doing is akin to fascism... and fascism wasn't that big of a success in the past either.

Both Facebook and Twitter testified they were not publishers. They said they were communications companies in order to benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. YouTube also benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which means they are not publishers.

Again, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are de facto public places. They want their platforms to be viewed as public places and they advertise them that way.

Now can you state why you try so hard to deny that YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are de facto public places? Can you state what is your political agenda?

You don't get it (or you are just dishonest). If I use the pronoun "he" when talking about a "transgender woman", I am necessarily discriminating against him. This is why I can get fined no matter the situation. Worse, as shown in the second case, it can even be interpreted as "violence" or psychological abuse, which is generally considered as a crime.

As for the "limit" on free speech, the truth should never be considered "hateful speech". A "transgender woman" is a man. This is the truth. Therefore the correct pronoun is "he". Calling him "he" is not "hate", it's just the truth.

The truth and falsifiable opinions should never be limited. For example, saying that the average IQ of black people is lower than for white people or that black people statistically commit more crimes than white people is the truth, therefore is should not be limited, even if it can lead to "hate". Saying white people stole the resources of Africa or that white people committed genocide in America is a falsifiable opinion, therefore it should not be limited, even if it can lead to "hate".

The only limit on free speech should be with lies and statements that are not falsifiable. For example, calling someone "racist" or "sexist" is generally not a falsifiable statement, it's a statement which is generally done only to generate "hate", therefore it can certainly be limited.

From the moment something is de facto a public place, it should certainly be treated as if it was.

Google, Twitter and Facebook want their platforms to be public places. They are designed to be public places. They are advertised that way. This is why they don't employ writers, newscasters and authors. They just offer a place for the public.

Obviously, Google, Twitter and Facebook have decided to use the popularity of the public places they created in order to push for their corporate ideologies. They certainly have the right to do this, but then they should be treated like any other media and be legally responsible for anything that is published by anyone on their platforms. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Do you know what "de facto" means?

Here's a case of a man who was fined $55,000 for "misgendering" someone :

https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

More than this, calling a "transgender" by his or her real pronoun can now be considered violence :

https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

So yes, misgendering can definitely send someone to prison.

Peterson is a mixed bag of progressive and conservative moral values, but he's certainly not "alt-right". As for doxxing, harassing and trying to get people fired, this is what "lefty/socialist/liberal/etc." do. I'm on the right, I do advocate for doxxing and making people on the left learn that their actions should have consequences, unfortunately it's very rare when I see someone on the right who agrees with me.

The reason Peterson is vague and imprecise is mainly because he just doesn't know or understand much. He's an ordinary guy who got thrown by a mob into a role he's unfit to play. He tries his best to play the part, but Peterson is not a leader. The mob controls him a lot more than he controls the mob.

You never use those labels yourself?

Yes, everyone has limits. Unfortunately it is very easy to see the mote in our adversary's eye, but not the beam in our own. A lot of people who claim to be "tolerant" are in fact much less tolerant than their adversaries.

All mainstream social meiai are full of hate speech against men or white people. All mainstream social media are already trailer parks. This is humanity. I'm not sure what is your point.

Free speech does mean free from curation. Having said that, Peterson is not really in favor of free speech, so I do believe there will be a lot of curation.

YouTube and Twitter are de facto public places. I understand that you are intolerant and in favor of an authoritarian government who would impose YOUR value on everyone, but at least try to get the facts straight.

I'm not sure if you are advocating for free speech or against it. Your analogy of smoking in a munition factory seems to be against free speech, but your arguments are clearly in favor of unregulated free speech.