Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ToxiClay t1_j6ombz8 wrote

This very quickly runs into a whole mess of politics, but the very short form is that, as it stands, Facebook can decide all by itself that you no longer get to speak on their platform -- they can ban you, they can restrict your ability to post, etc.

The considered motion would say "Facebook, you can't do that anymore, unless we say you can/order you to."

9

whiskeyriver0987 t1_j6p80in wrote

There's a mess of constitutional issues with the government stepping in like this and essentially compelling speach and unlimited public access to what's legally a private platform.

6

ToxiClay t1_j6p92qf wrote

This is true; however, there are some strong ramifications to Facebook and Twitter being basically the public square of the Internet that aren't properly addressed by simply stating that the First Amendment always constrains the government and frees private actors to do as they will.

The platform vs publisher dichotomy embodied in the Section 230 debate is one such place where they resurface.

1

Halvus_I t1_j6pjhwf wrote

> here are some strong ramifications to Facebook and Twitter being basically the public square of the Internet

They are not a 'public square' in any way shape or form, that the internets job, alone. Anyone pushing this angle has an agenda.

3