I guess it depends on the definition of "the US" then

the first amendment prevents government from infringing on free speech
it does not restrict youtube in any way
they are free to do as they please

Yes

so basically the gov will not protect free speech from companies

However.

We can not have free speech unless we (as a civilization) hold it as a principle.

colleges have a requirement to support free speach and often do what they can to prevent it. We have a constitutional right to free speech but very few willing to defend it

a plurality of Americans do value free speech
although the number is on the decline

half of our population is against it now

Alphabet can't say "The Government should protect free speech" while not doing it in their own actions, if it is not a principle of the people it will be lost.

half of young populations, but not of older people

was including the left's beloved migrants

yeah freedom from "harmful opinions" seems to becoming more important

yeah

it is a problem

people on the left seem to want a dystopian authoratarian future where they are afraid to say anything at all

Dysoypian

china's pretty good at protect peoples freedom from harmful opinions

for freedom!

I think it is wonderful that the big platforms choose to sensor
their MySpace moment is coming

I heard Tim say it before, Section 230 of the US communications decency act gives big tech power. I remember hearing from Tim that Twitter argued in court they could deny service to anyone, even based on other reasons like race/gender? Am I remembering that right?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-arrests-elizabeth-lecron-damon-joseph-for-separate-alleged-terror-plots-near-toledo-ohio/

CDA s230 grants legal immunity to "neutral platforms"

@Nomad under safe harbour they forfeited that right to gain immunity from lawsuits

They aren't neurtral

but USMCA rewrote CDA s230 with no neutral platform requiremnet

oh well

so now they are coming out as not neutral

fuck us all then.

and any intelligent observer has recognized the platforms were not neutral for some time

well

Well yes.

and twitter itself, with a federal judge, got it ruled that anyone not being able to post on trump's twitter page is a violation of the 1st ammendent

yes and no

like that imam who wants to stop radical islamic terrorists.. if someone has a wild out of control beard.. they might be a terrorist since trimming your beard is bad in islam

it is good that big tech is exposing itself

really good

so twitter itself called banning people from twitter illegal

apple: "our values guide our curation decisions"
every clueful person: "no shit, tim"

yet nothing is done about it because no one seems to have any spine

done... in what sense?