Still wrong. They aren’t the one who is entitled to an audience. I’m the one who’s entitled to be able to hear them and make my own decisions. Censorship systems make my decision for my by preventing “offensive” speech from even being seen and considered.
>>> You do not have the right to either a forum (Facebook) or an audience.
You said:
>> I’d rather find a world where humans do have that right than stay in the ruins of this one.
"Right to an audience" is part of what was being discussed. That part I was disagreeing with you on.
Now,
> I’m the one who’s entitled to be able to hear them
I agree with that in principle. In practice, that winds up compelling someone (some company) to carry their speech. That part I have a hard time agreeing with.
There are plenty of platforms that would host Trump. Or PETA. Or neo-nazi groups. Or anti-abortion groups. Or radical animal rights.
They may not have as large a reach as Facebook or Twitter. But that is likely a factor of the general public's interest in what they have to say.
So "ever being seen or considered" is fallacious.
It comes down to "I have the right to be heard by as many people as _I_ want to be heard by."
It's no different to saying that ABC/CBS are required to air your views, but choose not to, and ignoring the fact that you can go on Public Access TV or a smaller market, and still claim "I'm being censored!". It's not an accurate reflection of the state of affairs.
