4 ms·

> I’m continually surprised that Facebook, Twitter, and the rest dont simply create a web interface for law enforcement that allows them to delete (or more like

> I’m continually surprised that Facebook, Twitter, and the rest dont simply create a web interface for law enforcement that allows them to delete (or more likely make invisible) content they want to censor. In the US, we have the First Amendment, which prohibits government censorship. Of course, the government still sometimes uses political pressure to censor things, but there's a need to keep a semblance of rule of law.

judge2020 4y ago
Actually, if Twitter et al. want to provide the tools to block arbitrary content, they can do that just fine - companies can speak with the police and follow their wishes regardless of the first amendment because Twitter's own protected speech allows them to block any content for any reason, whether that be "it violated our content on harassment" or "the police don't like it and we're voluntarily following their wishes".
- phantom_of_cato 4y ago
  > companies can speak with the police and follow their wishes regardless of the first amendment because Twitter's own protected speech allows them to block any content for any reason, whether that be "it violated our content on harassment" or "the police don't like it and we're voluntarily following their wishes". Even if that wasn't against the First Amendment (which is a more complicated issue [1]), that wouldn't fly politically in the US. The side which likes law enforcement also currently puts emphasis on free speech, and the side which doesn't like the police wouldn't want them to be in charge of censorship. I think a company doing that would make everyone their enemy, and generate a lot of bad PR. [1]: For example, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Companies generally already do this with non-FISA "National Security Letter Requests" - Apple received between 1 and 499 between January and June 2021[0], and Google received between 500 – 999 in the same time frame[1]. Of course, this is nothing like allowing arbitrary content censorship in collaboration with law enforcement, which would indeed trigger a lot more outrage and bad PR. 0: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html 1: https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/us-national-security?hl=en https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/us-national-...
    - phantom_of_cato 4y ago
      Not really. National Security Letters [1] are for requesting data, not censorship. And of course, they are also controversial. Many of us consider the PATRIOT act a disaster. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter

judge2020 4y ago

Actually, if Twitter et al. want to provide the tools to block arbitrary content, they can do that just fine - companies can speak with the police and follow their wishes regardless of the first amendment because Twitter's own protected speech allows them to block any content for any reason, whether that be "it violated our content on harassment" or "the police don't like it and we're voluntarily following their wishes".

phantom_of_cato 4y ago
> companies can speak with the police and follow their wishes regardless of the first amendment because Twitter's own protected speech allows them to block any content for any reason, whether that be "it violated our content on harassment" or "the police don't like it and we're voluntarily following their wishes". Even if that wasn't against the First Amendment (which is a more complicated issue [1]), that wouldn't fly politically in the US. The side which likes law enforcement also currently puts emphasis on free speech, and the side which doesn't like the police wouldn't want them to be in charge of censorship. I think a company doing that would make everyone their enemy, and generate a lot of bad PR. [1]: For example, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
- judge2020 4y ago
  Companies generally already do this with non-FISA "National Security Letter Requests" - Apple received between 1 and 499 between January and June 2021[0], and Google received between 500 – 999 in the same time frame[1]. Of course, this is nothing like allowing arbitrary content censorship in collaboration with law enforcement, which would indeed trigger a lot more outrage and bad PR. 0: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html 1: https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/us-national-security?hl=en https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/us-national-...
  - phantom_of_cato 4y ago
    Not really. National Security Letters [1] are for requesting data, not censorship. And of course, they are also controversial. Many of us consider the PATRIOT act a disaster. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter