There needs to be a SCOCUS ruling. These tech platforms are NOT private clubs, even if they are privately owned. They are defacto public forums. By censoring even the most vile hate speech, they are openly violating people's 1st amendment rights and distorting the discourse of democracy.
Why because they claim to be impartial and claim to welcome "everybody" to their platforms. ONLY then do they moderate and editorialize their content in the backroom, out of view, and done with as many shadow-bans as possible. They are moderated content, but trying to pretend to be public content.
If they want to a be a one-viewpoint private forum (like The Donald.win for example) They need to be clear and upfront about their stance and policy. Otherwise they should afford NO platform protections under the law.
Twitter/Facebook/instigram... by claiming to be impartial makes them the digital corner of Main street and 1st Ave, not the DNC's private lounge. Thus unless they want to confess to being the DNC's private lounge, they HAVE to conform to free speech laws. They just can only ban users who break laws, actual criminal behavior. They cannot ban users who post unpopular opinions.
There needs to be a SCOCUS ruling. These tech platforms are NOT private clubs, even if they are privately owned. They are defacto public forums. By censoring even the most vile hate speech, they are openly violating people's 1st amendment rights and distorting the discourse of democracy.
Why because they claim to be impartial and claim to welcome "everybody" to their platforms. ONLY then do they moderate and editorialize their content in the backroom, out of view, and done with as many shadow-bans as possible. They are moderated content, but trying to pretend to be public content.
If they want to a be a one-viewpoint private forum (like The Donald.win for example) They need to be clear and upfront about their stance and policy. Otherwise they should afford NO platform protections under the law.
Twitter/Facebook/instigram... by claiming to be impartial makes them the digital corner of Main street and 1st Ave, not the DNC's private lounge. They just can only ban users who break laws, actual criminal behavior. They cannot ban users who post unpopular opinions.
There needs to be a SCOCUS ruling. These tech platforms are NOT private clubs. They are defacto public forums. By censoring even the most vile hate speech, they are openly violating people's 1st amendment rights and distorting the discourse of democracy.
Why because they claim to be impartial and claim to welcome "everybody" to their platforms. ONLY then do they moderate and editorialize their content in the backroom, out of view, and done with as many shadow-bans as possible. They are moderated content, but trying to pretend to be public content.
If they want to a be a one-viewpoint private forum (like The Donald.win for example) They need to be clear and upfront about their stance and policy. Otherwise they should afford NO platform protections under the law.
Twitter/Facebook/instigram... by claiming to be impartial makes them the digital corner of Main street and 1st Ave, not the DNC's private lounge. They just can only ban users who break laws, actual criminal behavior. They cannot ban users who post unpopular opinions.