This legal case is potentially of historic import because it addresses (to the best of my knowledge) the very first example in US history of a complete across the board censorship in our liberal democracy, which is founded firmly on the anti-authoritarian principle of free speech.
Do some still believe unilateral and damaging coercive censorship did not occur? I suppose if one has only paid attention to mass media and Facebook they may yet be unaware? I don't know.
In any case, whether you are currently aware of this issue or not, you will very likely find this conversation most interesting, and perhaps also of the utmost importance, as I do.
Interesting conversation. My only problem is with the assumption that social media without govt intervention will be a neutral player when by the very nature of its algorithms it drives searches to things that outrage, so the idea of free speech is kind of quaint. All voices are not heard. Check out Max Fishers excellent book The Chaos Machine
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, I will look at Fisher's book. My point of view: social media is the new media (efficiency wins), but it's in it's period of "yellow journalism". This is a problem that can be fixed by responsible governance without resorting to authoritarian measures. Squashing legitimate scientific debate around important issues in the age of science is the road to ruin.
Delete