2 ms·
If you accept the premise of illegal speech or that certain expression doesn't meet the bar for protected speech in the first place — as the article's author do
by Spivak 2y ago
If you accept the premise of illegal speech or that certain expression doesn't meet the bar for protected speech in the first place — as the article's author does and as I do — then you've already crossed the rubicon. The how you enforce it is an implementation detail.
Deputizing big tech to handle copyright disputes is in relative terms completely uncontroversial and is exactly the same means of censorship. Regulating the world's largest megaphones is the natural choice. It's hard to argue against any of the pieces when most people accept them individually but get uncomfortable at the reality of what it means put together.
- shadowgovt 2y agoIndeed. The only quibble I might entertain is that other mechanisms of law enforcement involve an open in public process of trial and some kind of check against absolute authority. Generally, such checks do not exist within the fiefdoms of individual social media outfits and their terms of service. I recognize it as a wart but I'm really not sure how to address it in an international context where there is no one frame of law that can be applied, nor should there be.