I think there's a difference between blaming Meta for blocking what it considers blatant misinformation and the effect that these large entities have on speech

I think there's a difference between blaming Meta for blocking what it considers blatant misinformation and the effect that these large entities have on speech overall. It's worth exploring in the same way that Brazil's banning of X is, as well as X's labeling of NPR as "U.S. state-affiliated media". Some of these moves show what happens when a private organization is treated like a core service or utility (NPR leaving X doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on anybody). Nobody will grumble if your local Mastodon instance blocks RT, because nobody treats Mastodon as a necessary piece of infrastructure. Russia's response of "Such selective actions against Russian media are unacceptable. ... This complicates prospects for normalising our relations with Meta." is hilarious because they're just gonna have to accept it because (drum-roll) Meta _is_ a private organization and isn't beholden to any b.s. from anybody as far as what audience they want to serve. I also learned via the article that Russia has banned Instagram and Facebook since 2022. I'm a little surprised they didn't think there would be parity there. It's about the amount of influence over global communication that one entity has, and what that entity should look like.