Now that we’ve established the board has power, it must be expanded to cover the entire social media ecosystem. As it stands, its jurisdiction includes only Facebook. If other social media firms agreed to follow the board’s content decisions, it would create a powerful form of industry self-regulation and preempt the need for laws, ill-advised or not, that seek to regulate the firms.
—
The Hill advocates for censorship via an NGO answerable to no one.
“dogmatic formulas regarding First Amendment precedent”
It’s called Fascism.
A government/private partnership. If government wants censorship or domestic spying that would be problematic for them, they call their tech buddies. If tech needs special laws protecting them from litigation, diplomatic muscle to protect the from foreign laws, more H1Bs,... government provides.
And we the voter, the American people is nowhere in the mix.
Don’t they have the right to deny us ours? No? Well, then... perhaps some folks need a little schooling right about now. We might just get all riled up, and send them a tersely worded letter, after a pause or two for reflection. Action is what we need, son, action!
So they pointed out that Fakebook violated their own rules with an indefinite ban, and the answer is? Wait, answer is cloudy ask again later < /Magic DoucheBall >
The truth is they pretended to express mild displease by the way Facebook treated President Trump to to appear to be fair and evenhanded, but, to no ones' surprise, upheld the decision by Facebook.
It reminds me of Pontius Pilate washing his hands.