It isn't even hard for them, and they will always have (or pretend to have) the excuse that the people who want some other platform are "spreading disinformation and that's dangerous" or "inciting violence" (ref. the amazingly imaginative Twitter rationale for deplatforming DJT).
It's worse than you think and "principles" aren't going to get anyone very far in this climate.
IIRC, direct communication is not required for the collusion rule to be applicable. Each company taking the same action is sufficient, even if it wasn't coordinated.
God luck with that. Courts have ruled they don't care about conservatives.
Only uniparty conservatives allowed.
That's an oxymoron.
Yeah it’s not illegal as of this point so no way itll happen i guess
It's monopolies. If my landlord gets rid of me (no easy task btw, talk to any landlord), I have other options.
If the 3 largest companies on the planet collude and get rid of me, I'm out of business. They choose who gets to stay in business.
I'd love for this to get to the supreme court. Whether they'd admit it or not, supreme court justices do care about public perception.
I understand that principled argument, but the thing is, they can CRUSH any potential competing platform, donated or not.
https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5
It isn't even hard for them, and they will always have (or pretend to have) the excuse that the people who want some other platform are "spreading disinformation and that's dangerous" or "inciting violence" (ref. the amazingly imaginative Twitter rationale for deplatforming DJT).
It's worse than you think and "principles" aren't going to get anyone very far in this climate.
IIRC, direct communication is not required for the collusion rule to be applicable. Each company taking the same action is sufficient, even if it wasn't coordinated.