> Would it be right to simply say, "if jwaldenbach doesn't like Zoom's polices, he doesn't have to use it"?
Yes.
> What is Western Union added a 'fact check' to your telegrams?
Don't use Western Union
> What if Google inserts a 'fact check' in your emails?
Don't use Google?
You don't have to use Zoom, you don't have to use Western Union, if you don't like their policies don't use their products.
Trump uses Twitter because he likes it but it's twitters own site! If they want to put 'Trump is a big orange fat dumb loser' under every one of his tweets they can, if they want they can turn it into the 'we love dogs!' site tomorrow, just replace the whole website with pictures of dogs they can. It would kill the company, but they can do it if they want.
I have no idea where this idea that Trump is being forced to use twitter and they're manipulating his free speech on someone elses website is coming from.
Your answers were expected, but I mentioned Zoom for a specific reason...
Currently, many judicial hearings are being conducted using Zoom. You can literally be ORDERED to appear for a hearing using Zoom.
In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis?
If yes, why? It's still a private company. Does the fact that the government is requiring you to use is restrict what the private company may or may not do?
There are two sides to the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument. You are focusing only on one side; namely, if the consumer doesn't like it, he need not use it.
The Zoom example might open your eyes to the other side; namely, if a private company chooses to offer a service to the government, it needs to abide by certain restrictions... and, if it doesn't like it, it need not provide that service.
In the Zoom example, if Zoom insists on putting the tag on your video during hearings, a reasonable response would be to turn to Zoom -- and not you -- and say, "If you aren't willing to curtail your 1st Am. rights a bit, Zoom, then don't provide the service to the Court... the choice is yours."
If Twitter is hosting government officials and agencies -- in their official capacity -- there are certain restrictions it muse abide by; namely, not modifying, editorializing, or shadow-banning their posts. If Twitter doesn't like this restriction, it can choose not to host that government official or agency.
> In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis?
It would be counter to the contractual agreements and policies that Zoom has set up. Twitter has no such obligations.
> The Zoom example might open your eyes to the other side; namely, if a private company chooses to offer a service to the government, it needs to abide by certain restrictions... and, if it doesn't like it, it need not provide that service.
The company is responsible for operating according to the terms that both it and its users agree to, and the law. That is it.
> If Twitter is hosting government officials and agencies -- in their official capacity -- there are certain restrictions it muse abide by; namely, not modifying, editorializing, or shadow-banning their posts. If Twitter doesn't like this restriction, it can choose not to host that government official or agency.
Twitter's only mistake is not reprimanding the racist hate-mongers like Trump for the policies it supposedly has. Any regular user or lesser public figure would have (and has) been banned if they tweeted the things he does.
If Twitter has agreements with these users, stating that they are immune from all of Twitter's posted rules, then sure your argument has footing. Otherwise, you don't get to hijack a platform with your own rules and because you happen to work for the government and open a free account there.
Would there be any legal impediment to Zoom automatically inserting a caption on YOUR video feed that says "jwalgenbach is a liar"?
If you were to complain, would we be justified in saying "it's just another jwaldenbach tantrum..."
Would it be right to simply say, "if jwaldenbach doesn't like Zoom's polices, he doesn't have to use it"?
What is Western Union added a 'fact check' to your telegrams? What if Google inserts a 'fact check' in your emails?
These issues are not trivial, and viewing them through a partisan lens is naive and immature.