Which is why so many commentators were relieved when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee last week, vowed to “push back” on future government attempts to censor Facebook posts.
Thanks to a recent Supreme Court case, in America, there’s also little to stop them.
When he had the chance—repeatedly, over the last eight years—Zuckerberg, like Twitter’s former CEO Jack Dorsey, buckled.
Why will social media platforms comply with her?
When asked why he robbed banks, legendary fugitive Willie Sutton replied, “That’s where the money is.” Governments coerce social media platforms into censorship for the same simple reason: That’s where the objectionable speech is.
Social media platforms—but not their users—can sue the government to stop the impermissible suppression of speech, according to Murthy v. Missouri, decided in June.
If challenged for pressuring social media companies to suppress content, Harris has already shown us what her response would be: safety, misinformation, harm to the public, privilege. We must, in other words, protect the people from their own speech.
Why will social media platforms comply with her? Easy. That’s where the money is.
https://www.thefp.com/p/abigail-shrier-elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg
No comments:
Post a Comment