Please, continue to spell this out. Laws that forbid an organisation from applying its rules because that organisation is popular? Laws that compel an organisation to allow users to perpetrate abuse if they're important in one country? Where does liability now fall when say, incitement to violence end up with someone losing an eye, a life?
Don't misunderstand me - I absolutely think that those who allowed Trump to directly incite violence for years have blood on their hands. They absolutely have liability for this. They disgust me. But now suddenly the conversation seems to be that Twitter, for example, should have been forbidden from kicking Trump off now or years ago when they should have. So who would share the blame now?
> Where does liability now fall when say, incitement to violence end up with someone losing an eye, a life?
Courts? The US is a bit weird in that one person is excluded for the normal legal system of judges, and instead replaces it with the congress, but regardless that is where the crime of "incitement to violence" and "conspiracy" is settled.
As with all other conspiracies, we also have the persons who committed the act of violence. If they are not dead they will hopefully end up in court and have their case brought up by the legal system.
Yes, because, in different parts of the world, laws are different. EU is saying these orgs are to powerful. How is that bad? They are planning on crafting laws to limit the abuse potential of these companies.
If a company rules are illegal in an area, then it should 100% be followed. Look at how the NYtimes for a while did not allow California residents who signed up online, cancel online. Ironically, also a media company.
How about ethics in general then? Facebook has been implicated in assisting genocide, the methodological execution of people in Myanmar - yet, people are focused on one recent event that, when you compare the effects of assisting a government in executing it's own people, to people using it as a platform to come together and raid the capitol - it seems to fall quite flat. Yes, humans lost their life in both examples, but how, why do we come together now that it is in our own backyard, vs happening in a distant part of the world? How do you quantify humanity value/loss of life or allow these social media orgs, that operate as an outlet, a communication platform, that bond "networks" together this unlimited power?
I wonder if there is a conflation (or I am misunderstanding) that the big social media orgs have some sort of duty to uphold freedom of speech but are at the same time vilified by some for banning abusive users. My criticisms align with yours it seems - that they have been complicit in perpetrating abuse for some time, including spilling of blood, and have only now, now the "optics are bad", decided to act. I guess my argument is that they should be allowed to ban any user for breaking their rules - as long as those rules are deemed fair and legal - and no organisation that does so should be decried by lawmakers or citizens for suppressing speech.
Your point is fair and valid, but Europe has long been wary of US Tech's incipient power and they see Trump's permaban (warranted as it is) as a warning.
