3 ms·
The idea that this particular U.S. president is exceptional underpins the policies and actions of the platform companies. The EFF has to respond, as this is spe
by motohagiography 6y ago
The idea that this particular U.S. president is exceptional underpins the policies and actions of the platform companies. The EFF has to respond, as this is specifically what they were set up to respond to, sort of what the ACLU's original mandate was.
However, that major platform companies are working on behalf of a (still) opposition party to obstruct and suppress a (still) sitting president with some 10 days left in his term, could have unforeseen legal consequences. It will be a very interesting week.
The problem is that if well meaning people break the rules, there is no reason for less well meaning ones not to ignore them.
- shkkmo 6y agoWhat rules are you alluding to being broken?
- motohagiography 6y agoNot a lawyer, but most countries have a rule, if perhaps only a convention, where you don't collude with other businesses to obstruct the sitting head of state, and probably specifically during a state of national emergency. Maybe the U.S. is different, and even if it isn't, the incoming admin won't prosecute it, but it looks bad for tech platforms either way. We indeed live in interesting times.
- shkkmo 6y agoI have never heard of that rule. Do you have any sources on it? Court cases or such? Any sort of precedent as to what qualified as "obstruction"?
- motohagiography 6y agoI do recommend googling "obstruction," in its myriad forms. Of course, communication companies banning their heads of state is probably normal, unless we'd like to sealion this thread?
- shkkmo 6y agoWe left "normal" behind a long time ago. Telling me to google a single word is not an argument or a citation. If you have an argument to make or a source to cite, go for it. Otherwise you are just making stuff up.