Yes, companies do not have some kind of right to do anything they want because "they worked for it". It's the other way around: people grant companies the privilege of making money as long as they provide a benefit and thus (of course) don't hurt consumers.

Companies are an agglomeration of humans, and we should never allow an organized group of people to make life miserable for ordinary individuals. If that happens, then democracy is lost.

I'm confused by the strength of your disagreement. You're using a website that has rules about what you can do. Presumably you only let the people you want to into your house? Are you saying you don't agree with property rights? I suspect I'm misunderstanding.

There's a big difference between personal ownership and corporate ownership. There's a huge legal and ethical gap between your living room and a Wal-Mart parking lot.

What is the difference? What are we disagreeing about here?

We are disagreeing about this line:

>I think it's fine if a company can control what I do in their property, real or virtual.

and this argument:

>Presumably you only let the people you want to into your house? Are you saying you don't agree with property rights?

"Property rights" are not some universal constant. They're just whatever we pragmatically decide is a reasonable amount of control to grant to someone to make life run smoothly for everyone. We're allowed to make different rules for different cases, and the "living room" and "Wal-Mart" cases clearly warrant different rules. Specifically, what happens in your house - a private place where you sleep - directly impinges on your personal well-being and safety, while Wal-Mart - a corporate entity with no feeling, consciousness, need for sleep or sense of pain - is almost entirely unaffected by what happens in one of their parking lots, which also happens to be a public place.

There is no reason, no benefit to society, to allow a corporation unbridled control over your behavior merely because they need premises to conduct business.