Did you literally not see a former president effectively get silenced in the public sphere by 3 corporations?
How can you seriously believe that these corporations (who are not subject to the first amendment, and cannot be challenged in court) won't extend and abuse this technology to tackle "domestic extremism" but broadly covering political views?
> a former president effectively get silenced in the public sphere
It's laughable that a man who can call a press conference at a moment's notice and get news coverage for anything he says can be "silenced" because private companies no longer choose to promote his garbage.
He's been completely silenced. If you don't believe me, you can hear it from him next week when he's on the largest news network talking about being silenced.
That is a fascinating nationalization of private space that did not exist 15 years ago. Was every politician prior to Twitter's ascendance effectively banned from communicating with the public?
Those companies can definitely be challenged in courts. But they also have rights, including things like freedom of speech and freedom of association, which is why they win when challenged on this. Why do you think a former president and claimed billionaire should have special rights to their property?
How can you seriously believe that these corporations (who are not subject to the first amendment, and cannot be challenged in court) won't extend and abuse this technology to tackle "domestic extremism" but broadly covering political views?