I'll bite, but then I have a serious question for you. I'm definitely not cheering on deplatforming – I think it's fraught with problems – but I do think there

I'll bite, but then I have a serious question for you. I'm definitely not cheering on deplatforming – I think it's fraught with problems – but I do think there's a grave danger being posed by extremists plotting violent attacks using these platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Parler) right now. It's complicated! Here are some of my thoughts on the issue (which may conflict or have logical inconsistencies – I'm just a person trying to think through this stuff, and I don't have the answers). - Private conversations should be private, always, and there should be no back doors, ever. The only regulations regarding private conversations should be to strengthen them. I think it's okay for law enforcement to try to crack those private conversations, but I am vehemently against requiring a "secure back door" that (supposedly) only the government has access to, or laws preventing tech companies attempting to make uncrackable encryption. - Any rules created about this stuff should be applied equally across the board to all people, regardless of political persuasion or position in government. - I'm in favor of internet access being considered a public utility or even government funded; nobody should be "deplatformed" from basic internet access. Assuming that's the case, I don't see what's stopping Parler from setting up a server. AWS isn't the only way to serve web applications, and Twitter isn't the only way to broadcast messages publicly. However, if Parler's primary content is plots to violently overthrow a democratically elected government, I'm not sure that should be legal. - I'm troubled by the stranglehold that payment processors have on our systems of commerce, and I'd be in favor of more decentralized payment methods. - Broadcast mediums are fundamentally different from private conversations, and I don't think free speech should be confused with right to Tweet. Trump, in particular, is the most powerful person in the world and has the biggest platform in the world; he need only step out to the press room and every news outlet in the world will report what he says. I don't feel this is the best example of someone being suppressed. He chose (and arguably drastically increased the importance of) Twitter, and he avoids reporters, because he can spread disinformation and propaganda there without focused criticism. - The idea that Trump and his supporters haven't been heard is laughable; I feel like we've been living in a Trump theme park for the past five years. It's all we've heard about every single day. I try to remember what it was like not thinking about Obama for two weeks at a time, and I look forward to not thinking about Biden for two weeks at a time. - It feels like everyone on all sides of this issue agrees that the big tech companies are too powerful in many ways: as you point out, they have the ability to tamp-down public conversation, but on the flip side they have the ability to propagate disinformation on a massive scale. (There's also obviously their anti-competitiveness, but that feels like a different topic.) I have no idea what, if anything, should be done about this. Just as consolidation of power in tech companies is worrisome, so is consolidation of power in government. - Speaking as someone on the left, I'm also troubled by (and I hate this term) "cancel culture". In recent weeks I watched someone I care about get destroyed for no reason other than the tone of a jokey story they told missed the mark. In my mind, "Internet Mob Justice" is as worrisome and problematic as government or corporate overreach, and I'm extremely skeptical of it regardless of which end of the political spectrum it's coming from. - The disinformation thing is a huge and serious problem, and I haven't seen many "total free speech at all costs" advocates address it aside from saying something along the lines of "let each person listen to all the arguments and decide for themselves". That feels naive to me; flooding the airwaves with propaganda and disinformation is another way to quell free speech. I thought this was an interesting article on that topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html - Facebook in particular allows for a dangerous combination of broadcasting and private conversations, which is to say they allow broadcasting to specific targets in a way that can't be observed from the outside. One thing about public free speech (including disinformation) is that everyone can see it and at least try to refute it (difficult in this age of 'bubble' media, but still feasible). The way Facebook allows the spread of disinformation seems especially dangerous in that it's secret but also at scale. ------- I dunno, that's just some of what's going through my head in regards to all of this. My serious questions for you are: - Do you think there's a problem with the way technology has enabled the scale and precision of disinformation campaigns? If so, do you have any ideas what we can do about it? - Do you think there should be any moderation whatsoever? In other words, should people be allowed to incite, advocate, and organize violence in public forums? If not, where is the line? If so, what's remedies do we have as a society to the subsequent violence?