Great article. The court case it mentions, Brandenberg v. Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._O

Great article. The court case it mentions, Brandenberg v. Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio), is why the common claim that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater is wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...). The core of the article is this: "the status quo simply isn’t sustainable—because Silicon Valley’s communications oligopoly, being increasingly staffed by young, highly progressive knowledge workers, is no longer even pretending to be ideologically neutral when it comes to content moderation." I don't know how the rest of the world, by which I mean any location that is not Silicon Valley, can entrust the management of their digital town square and the ability to exercise free speech over to a small set of companies in one location with relatively extreme political views. They're effectively giving up their self determination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination) by allowing social media operators that audience and power. I also found the article's concluding notes to be realistic, particularly in admitting that it is currently unclear what the exact shape of regulation would look like for social media oligopolists. But it is clear that something must be done, and soon.