3 ms·

Is it now? When a politician chooses to use a for-profit service as their primary vehicle of how you "petition for redress of grievances", what right does the

Is it now? When a politician chooses to use a for-profit service as their primary vehicle of how you "petition for redress of grievances", what right does the for-profit company have to stop that specific content? We're not talking about a mom 'n pop store. We're talking about multinational organizations that we know have already swayed politics in many countries (FAANG). In the US, the People have a right to freedom of speech, and a right to redress the government for grievances. And if the government shows up on some for-profit site, the company should be required to let the People talk... on the politicians page.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Sounds like a mess of contractual law where being explicit helps and blame goes along with whoever didn't clear things up. Lets take a hypothetical that the FBI was doing a big project to try to identify children victimized in child pornography using machine learning and DNA processing and need to rent out extra server power. Above board and within their domain to do so - laudible even. If they just rented out Amazon EC2 instances and got instantly flagged once they uploaded blobs of data that matched hashes of known child pornography they certainly couldn't charge them with interfering with an investigation! Amazon could rightfully terminate service in response because they fear the expenses involved in handling such materials and compliance and the default rates wouldn't cover it or they were worried about the bad PR from statistics that they are hosting terrabytes of illegal pornography - even if grossly out of context said statement wouldn't even be libelous because it is the truth.