4 ms·

It's not a question of whether or not they can be shut down, it's whether or not they _should_. I'm in the US and am generally of the mind that the power of gov

It's not a question of whether or not they can be shut down, it's whether or not they _should_. I'm in the US and am generally of the mind that the power of government should be limited as much as is reasonable in order to protect people's freedoms in the future. There is a very real danger in proposing one-off 'fixes' for every ill you see in the world as it sets a precedent which can be abused down the road. By your definition numerous media outlets could just be shut down entirely. Is that really a good thing? Do we trust the government to decide which information is and is not acceptible for us to consume? I certainly don't.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> it's whether or not they _should_ I personally don't think they should be shut down. (Fines and potentially criminal proceedings, under contempt laws, for Zuckerberg and Sandberg would make more sense.) But they should face some consequences. Keeping all lawful options on the table is a good negotiating strategy. With respect to metastasisation, that is a concern. But fortunately there isn't a rich history of lawful companies blowing off multiple countries' Parliaments. The one-offness of the situation isn't in countries reacting, but in how complacent they've been with it all.