3 ms·
I don’t think HE should be making that decision, especially in an upstream role—and the fact that they’re in that position points at a need for regulation. How
by shortformblog 3y ago
I don’t think HE should be making that decision, especially in an upstream role—and the fact that they’re in that position points at a need for regulation.
However, I would argue that KF is a long-term threat whose imminent dangers were honestly a very narrow lens that barely appeased a company that shouldn’t have been making the call in the first place. Their position in last year’s debate created a very volatile atmosphere for a solid month—a situation which would be volatile once again if brought back.
- yanderekko 3y agoThe Constitution would not provide a carveout for the long-term censorship of a forum like KF based on some rationale like "creating a volatile atmosphere", so I don't know what you expect regulation to accomplish here. And of course activists would scream if such regulation were applied in a viewpoint-neutral fashion (eg. platforms being mandated to delete content that advocates for crime / violence - imagine how Trump would've used this power during the BLM riots!) - the non-neutrality is considered a feature of private censorship, not a bug.
- chonkerz 3y agoI can't find anything in the Constitution about the Internet.
- yanderekko 3y agoYes, well, that's the beautiful thing about common law - we still have a pretty clear understanding of what constitutes free speech, and it's largely invariant to whether the means of communication is through the internet or a medium that was more-familiar to the founders.
- chonkerz 3y ago[flagged]