> I feel like the article boils down to "the Russians have a > big advantage influencing the US because we allow free > speech and they don't" with a strong

> I feel like the article boils down to "the Russians have a > big advantage influencing the US because we allow free > speech and they don't" with a strong implication that we > need to give law enforcement more tools to crack down on > free speech. Your common-language summary is right on the money. Quoting from the article: > Currently, platforms like Facebook and Twitter have little > incentive to help counterintelligence beyond their own > goodwill. But Congress could pass legislation that requires > social media companies to cooperate with counterintelligence > in the same ways they do with law enforcement. As a US citizen, I will never consent to the abrogation of our First Amendment rights due to fear about how the First Amendment might be used. And I mean never. Tangentially, Asha Rangappa's (author of the linked article) suggestion makes me wonder about the timing and effect of Russia-sponsored meddling against the 2016 election. In particular, the influence of Russia-tampering was no more evident than in the then-FBI Director's public statement that HRC's emails were still under FBI investigation mere days before the election. (Comey works for the US, but the emails were collected by Russia-sponsored agents.) Up to that point, I knew Comey best as leader of the FBI which insisted that Apple and other smartphone OS manufacturers should provide a tool to circumvent encryption safeguards (e.g. leveraging the All Writs Act in the San Bernadino shooter case). The US should and must protect itself against foreign threats. However, abrogating the First and Fourth Amendments (security from unreasonable searches and seizures) does not protect the United States but critically weakens it.