Yours is such a common response but it wrongly attributes basic rights to companies that simply don't exist.
Companies are not people and don't have ANY fundamental rights. They are completely creatures of statute.
People DO have fundamental rights (though many governments seem to ignore them at the moment), but when people use infrastructure created by the State they also have to follow rules.
Its like saying I'm free to drive on the road any way I see fit, even if it kills people.
- If you walk on your own private land you can set your own rules.
- If you ride a bicycle on a road you may have to follow a few rules.
- If you drive a car there will be quite a few rules.
- If you drive a prime mover there will be even more rules.
As companies ARE infrastructure created by the State they are completely rule bound.
One rule they have to follow is not to make illegal cartel agreements with competitors.
Another is not to engage in anti-competitive activity.
As advertising is essential to the very essence of competition (discovery of market information) blocking a whole industry from its main modes of advertising is fundamentally anti-competitive.
well, to be fair my mom would understand a whole lot more about crypto if it was permitted on FB.
But to your points, well I might revisit my own the Barkeeper. He is a person and represents the company "the Bar" at the same time. However it would be illegal to not serve a customer based on their believes, religion (or skin color caugh). So I guess you are kind of right, it is discriminating against crypto (their users and companies included)
I just don't like hiding behind an anti-discrimination law when I would propagate that in the perfect world people (and companies) are free to choose if they want to discriminate, it just backfires so hard that people are not discriminating. In reality many seem to chose apartheid even in a world that claims to be past that.
Ok now finally back to your points, I disagree that companies are infrastructure besides actual state-owned companies. Companies are something that rose to prominence despite the state/the monarchy but they had to cut a lot of deals with the state leaving the common man poor and broken.
The more I think about it the more I think there should be no difference in what a person can do to what a company can do. After all Bill Gates just privately owns 269,000 acres of farmland, why should he be able to do more with this land than any company? Couldn't companies disguise their doings as that of a single person?
I know in reality there a lot of additional laws companies have to abide by, see the cut deals with the Monarchy thing, but I like to sometimes take the market extremist standpoint while I know that monopolies are inevitable. Have you ever heard about accelerationism?