I agree with you wrt. Twitter being a decently sized hub of possible vital information. I’m actually writing a paper for a national security course at the moment on Russia’s combined cyber warfare strategy that emphasizes misinformation and misdirection.
I’m just attempting to make sense of what I view as a hypocrisy from free market advocates and point out that as far as the Constitution goes, private entities aren’t responsible for upholding your speech on their platforms.
I see what you’re saying about legal scholars, and in my mind that raises the question that if monopolies should be regulated by even staunch free market advocates, shouldn’t extremely dangerous speech be regulated in some capacity on some platforms by even staunch free speech advocates?
I know and recognize that can be a slippery slope, but people far smarter than me haven’t untangled it so I won’t even try.
Maybe I’m wrong, please change my mind if you think I am :-)
I’m just attempting to make sense of what I view as a hypocrisy from free market advocates and point out that as far as the Constitution goes, private entities aren’t responsible for upholding your speech on their platforms.
I see what you’re saying about legal scholars, and in my mind that raises the question that if monopolies should be regulated by even staunch free market advocates, shouldn’t extremely dangerous speech be regulated in some capacity on some platforms by even staunch free speech advocates?
I know and recognize that can be a slippery slope, but people far smarter than me haven’t untangled it so I won’t even try.
Maybe I’m wrong, please change my mind if you think I am :-)