Yeah, I remember that podcast, and I remember thinking that it sounds like it should be, but will it be so? Since then a little has happened to calm my doubts.

Yeah, I remember that podcast, and I remember thinking that it sounds like it should be, but will it be so? Since then a little has happened to calm my doubts. Like, it wasn't Twitter that got bullied by Trump back when he was USA president, but very much otherwise. (You can say TikTok almost got bullied, but in the end it wasn't, and even then, it almost got bullied into something that some other tech-giants would love.) And while €100,000 might sound significant for some random citizen, is it for Google, really? Heck, is it even a nuisance? (BTW, this is what I felt about many of Ravikant's statements: he sounds so wise, so believable, and I want to agree with him, because it fits my own philosophy so much, but as soon as I get distracted from the magic of his voice for a moment, I start doubting if all of it has any ground whatsoever or is it just make believe.) Edit: However, I think I have to clarify that your interpretation isn't exactly how I remember his point. As I remember, the point was that openly censoring the content for any reason other than the court order is basically the moment where they lose the "plausible deniability" of being responsible for their content, i.e. they cannot be seen as "just a middleman" anymore (this is how they want to be seen). But it is close enough for the matter we are discussing right now.