In the last 3 years we had government officials directing, in very strong language, various tech companies on what was and was not allowed on their platforms. While many people might argue that tech platforms are not public squares and should be free to censor however they like, everyone should have a problem with politicians directing tech companies on what can be said on their platforms.
As an addendum, I’m always curious to hear what that camp has to say about net neutrality after arguing so vigorously against its core principles.
IMHO if you want to operate as a mass market platform and are pursuing a winner takes all business strategy you should be regulated as a common carrier (Uber, Facebook, Comcast, Google, Microsoft, cloudflare, etc).
And, as is their First Amendment right, those tech companies frequently responded with "no". This is very clear from the Twitter Files information, even if the journalists involved glossed over that point.
For example:
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-tw...
> Then-President Trump asked Twitter to take down a tweet from model and television personality Chrissy Teigen in 2019 because he saw it as “derogatory,” according to testimony from a Twitter whistleblower and former employee.
Trump has the First Amendment right to ask. Twitter has the First Amendment right - which they exercised - to decline that request.
If Trump had sent US Marshals to seize Twitter HQ when they said no, that is where we have issues.
I recommend reading judge Doughty's decision [1]. It's a long read, but well worth your time.
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
Really this sort of thing should be seen as an in-kind political contribution, and the fact it’s not shows just how captured the entire judicial and regulatory branch is.
Nobody actually believes that other than right wing fundie culture warriors. Elon Musk thinks it’s complete bullshit, as does every other person who is willing to put objective facts above their personal feelings.
