Quote Quoting Junzhuo Gu
View Post
One thing I am very confused about is that the US Constitution protects free speech against the government, and private companies like Facebook have no obligation to protect free speech. Is it wrong for everyone to be equal before the law?
Certainly nothing wrong with treating everyone who is situated the same equally. That is what the government must do. Private persons and companies, though, do not have that obligation except in limited circumstances where some statute or ordinance requires it. So, for example, all employers with at least 15 employees must not discriminate on the basis of race because a federal statute (the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits employers from doing that. Many states similarly provide by statute that employers may not discriminate on the basis of race. In the absence of those laws the employers would be free to discriminate on the basis of race if they wished.

Quote Quoting Junzhuo Gu
View Post
Do private companies have a higher status before the law than governments?
Not a "higher status." But certainly the rules for what governments may do are different than what private persons and entities may do. The Constitution protects the public against government abuses since without those protections the government, with its police power and military power, could take away cherished rights and mistreat the public. One only need look at China to see that.

Quote Quoting Junzhuo Gu
View Post
Facebook is not simply private property. It is a monopoly media platform for providing public services.
No, it is not providing "public services". It is a private firm that provides a platform for people to communicate with each other and stay in touch in a variety of ways and that is supported by selling advertising. And while it is certainly by far the the largest platform providing such services it is not the only one and thus not truly a monopoly.

Quote Quoting Junzhuo Gu
View Post
It is responsible for ensuring that it provides comprehensive services.
No. It has no legal mandate to provide any particular service, let alone whatever you mean by "comprehensive services". It is private firm and gets to decide what services, if any, it will provide to customers.


Quote Quoting Junzhuo Gu
View Post
He has a responsibility to be neutral and to ensure that everyone's right to freedom of speech is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Otherwise, Facebook may steer public opinion in a certain direction in an extremely wrong direction, such as making Facebook ’s Chinese platform more conducive to the Chinese authorities and restricting opponents of the Chinese Communist Party from making full use of the platform.
As already discussed, the Constitution's protection of Free Speech only protects you against government interference with your speech. It does not require any private person to provide you a platform for your speech, does not require private persons to be neutral or balanced in the views they present, nor otherwise regulate private speech. Indeed, the Constitution's protection for free speech means that Facebook too may say what it wants and express whatever views it wants. This means that if Facebook wanted to present pro-China views, it is allowed to do just that. The government cannot prohibit Facebook from doing that because that would infringe on Facebook's free speech rights.