Technically, yes. In practice, and how people think about it...sadly no. We're so far beyond that "old school" type of thinking, and most people couldn't even tell you what "free speech" is. Perception is, sadly, important, and most people couldn't even grasp your argument. It's sad that this was a largely a talking point liberals agreed with, in even the 90's and 00's, and now most leftists/progressives are staunchly opposed to the concept.
For some reason, a communication carrier isn't a carrier, if it's digital, or does games, or TV, or anime, or VOIP, or what have you. All must be regulated, all must censor "hate speech."
Also, these fuckers would censor you for talking shit over AT&T if they could, and they'd love to get there eventually. Thankfully judges sort of knew what they were doing back then, some of the time, so it's much harder to go after established telecom carriers than new digital "platforms."
It's a shame our government went further to shit, as technology rapidly developed, so we're missing a lot of protections in the digital sphere. And no, I'm not talking regulations on the companies, but regulations on the government being able to censor people online.
TL;DR: Technically speaking, asking Steam to censor its customers is like telling AT&T to police what someone says over the phone, but in practice and perception (i.e. what people expect and ask for), digital platforms don't get that same protection or perceived benefit of the doubt, so vast swathes of people will not see it as the same, and will think it's totally Steam's job and responsibility to police the speech of their users. Woof, that was a sentence.
Yes, but also sadly no.
Technically, yes. In practice, and how people think about it...sadly no. We're so far beyond that "old school" type of thinking, and most people couldn't even tell you what "free speech" is. Perception is, sadly, important, and most people couldn't even grasp your argument. It's sad that this was a largely a talking point liberals agreed with, in even the 90's and 00's, and now most leftists/progressives are staunchly opposed to the concept.
For some reason, a communication carrier isn't a carrier, if it's digital, or does games, or TV, or anime, or VOIP, or what have you. All must be regulated, all must censor "hate speech."
Also, these fuckers would censor you for talking shit over AT&T if they could, and they'd love to get there eventually. Thankfully judges sort of knew what they were doing back then, some of the time, so it's much harder to go after established telecom carriers than new digital "platforms."
It's a shame our government went further to shit, as technology rapidly developed, so we're missing a lot of protections in the digital sphere. And no, I'm not talking regulations on the companies, but regulations on the government being able to censor people online.
TL;DR: Technically speaking, asking Steam to censor its customers is like telling AT&T to police what someone says over the phone, but in practice and perception (i.e. what people expect and ask for), digital platforms don't get that same protection or perceived benefit of the doubt, so vast swathes of people will not see it as the same, and will think it's totally Steam's job and responsibility to police the speech of their users. Woof, that was a sentence.