> So the gov can def say things that would lead to self-censorship. They just can't be dicks about it.

The government is going to have a hard time claiming they didn't engage in coercion when they've been actively threatening to yank the Section 230 protections of the Communications Decency Act if the platforms don't step up the censorship.

>You may have never heard of it, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the legal backbone of the internet. The law was created almost 30 years ago to protect internet platforms from liability for many of the things third parties say or do on them.

Decades later, it’s never been more controversial. People from both political parties and all three branches of government have threatened to reform or even repeal it.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-ex...

>If gov speech is inherently coercive, then the gov is NOT allowed to make that request. (which feels dumb to me) In reality, it's more likely a court would hold they can say that; they just can't imprison the publisher (or audit their taxes more aggressively) as a result.

Governments absolutely can be coercive, but that doesn't mean all government speech is coercive.

Claiming (you're not, just expanding on your point) that government speech is inherently coercive is ridiculous on its face.

My local government sends me a "voter guide" a couple months before every election. By that logic, that means the government is coercing me to vote.

CISA[0] sends me multiple emails a day telling me to apply patches or mitigations to address vulnerabilities/security issues.

CISA is a government agency. By that logic, by doing the above, they are coercing me to manage my private property to their whim.

The CIA is a government agency. Their "World Fact Book"[1] argues against travel to certain destinations. By that logic, they're coercing people to only travel where the CIA wants you to travel.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of other examples of government speech that isn't coercive. Was there coercion WRT communications between the government and social media companies? I have no idea as I don't know all the facts of the case. And neither does anyone posting in this thread.

If the government was coercive, then let's (metaphorically) put them up against the wall to be shot. If not, then let's do it for real. /s

[0] https://www.cisa.gov/

[1] https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/

The threat of more aggressive tax audits or regulations or whatever is always there. It doesn't have to be spelled out. Piss off the government and they have a billion ways to make you feel pain. It would be absurd if the government could "suggest" you do something and this was considered not an abuse because they didn't literally, at that exact moment, spell out the penalties they would impose for non-compliance.

Of course in a theoretically ideal system laws are precise enough that governments can't simply make your life worse for getting on the wrong side of them. But nobody seems willing to stomach the level of rigor that would require from lawmakers. Three Felonies A Day and such.