Regarding the editorial on social censoring (weekend edition, Aug. 8-9): First, let me say that I agree that privately owned social media sites should have the right to cull material that doesn’t pass the test of their “internal policy.”
However, I want some liberal progressive to answer this question: What’s the difference in (for example) a funeral home or some other business who, as a matter of internal policy, decides against employing transgender or openly gay persons and the said social media sites or newspapers who block political ads or other statements that don’t line up with their internal policy.
If the transgender or gay person loses their job due to their choice to alter the natural order, then let the government who allows or even legalizes such things give them a $600 pension (taxpayer beware) until they can find employment with a company that’s comfortable with them.
By the way, the candidate who sends in an unacceptable political ad is also trying to get a job. If the ad is dirty, this implicitly informs the public of the nature of their character, which could be a factor in deciding whether to vote for them.
Internal policy is just a criterion for discrimination (either just or unjust). You seem to acknowledge that it depends on the personal inclinations of the one (or ones) construing the terms of the policy. Most likely this piece won’t be printed in The Times because of internal policy, as seems to be the case with most of the pieces I send in.