> That’s how you distinguish between good mods and bad mods — by passing democratically accountable laws that tell us what we are and are not entitled to. Gove

> That’s how you distinguish between good mods and bad mods — by passing democratically accountable laws that tell us what we are and are not entitled to. Government involvement would worsen the problem by a million. I'm also tired of tip-toeing around what is probably a real conspiracy. That whistleblower could easily be a plant by the government. We already know there isn't balanced political moderation with big tech (they censored the former president), so there's nothing stopping them from trying to expand that control and do so in a transparent, legal way now. They just need an excuse as always. I'm all for regulating big tech, but if anything it should be other tech companies. Why not have private businesses specializing in content moderation do the regulating? I think there are many solutions that don't involve government, but I suspect they are salivating at the prospect of having full control without the need to pretend they don't. Then these laws will become permanent and it's only two steps away from requiring this as some national profile, but that's another thread.