Do you think it would be possible to make a clear statements of the principles from which you're reasoning, at least nominally? I can't distinguish your responses from the most efficient rationalization for having de facto censorship via social media companies who are afraid of government interference if they don't comply.

You keep pointing out that there are limits to speech already. But why? Do you seriously think I'm unaware of this? Do you think I'm arguing that it should be legal for people to use Facebook to coordinate violence against people and it should be illegal for Facebook to kick them out? You say you're not shutting down discussion, but irrelevant diversions like this are exactly shutting down discussion.

Facebook's policy on misinformation starts out like so: "Misinformation is different from other types of speech addressed in our Community Standards because there is no way to articulate a comprehensive list of what is prohibited. With graphic violence or hate speech, for instance, our policies specify the speech we prohibit, and even persons who disagree with those policies can follow them. With misinformation, however, we cannot provide such a line. The world is changing constantly, and what is true one minute may not be true the next minute."

That's the kind of thing that people worry about--"we'll make you shut up or kick you off if you say something wrong, but we can't tell you what's wrong, and what is wrong might change from minute to minute."

This is also the kind of thing that deserves a serious discussion, because vague rules like this can have a seriously dampening effect on public discourse. And maybe you haven't noticed, but there is a lot of discourse on Facebook. Facebook has half a billion tweets per day. These media are now the air of public discourse.

And yet, you keep imagining that I mean that Fox News should be required to carry certain messages, despite me having said nothing of the sort and indeed already indicated the distinction between companies' services. Do you understand the concept of a common carrier? Do you understand the concept of being a provider of basic services? Do you understand the distinction between a content provider and a carrier?

I mean, we have truth in advertising laws already, and one could make an argument that they need to change their name to Fox Right Wing Propaganda or something, but not that they need to extol the virtues of President Biden. Well, unless the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated--but that would only cover over-the-air broadcast, which is licensed due to it being a limited resource.

Why would you imagine that "we need to talk about what free speech is appropriate on channels dedicated to enabling speech" means "we tell Fox News what to broadcast"?

Also, your "free to go elsewhere" argument is exactly the argument against unions, OSHA, and the rest. Why are you using that argument? You know very well that there isn't a second Facebook. If 90% of your friends are there, there's nowhere go to.