Great short video. I see it through a slightly different lens.
Imagine someone posting on a platform instead speaking atop a soapbox in a town square. Legally what governs their ability to speak without interruption is the First Amendment. They are free to lie, call for a regime change, and spread misinformation! Of course, they can't try to influence anyone to break the law or say things that could endanger the public.
A few examples.:
A: Someone says Mayor Johnson isn't fit to govern Chicago and should be replaced. A OK. If that someone suggests a violent insurrection, not ok.
B: Joe Rogen said Ivermectin is a good treatment tool for COVID. The Biden administration and CDC had his post taken down. Did that put the public at risk? Turns out that Joe was 100% right and the FDA has approved that drug for COVID use.
C: In Brazil many posters on X were asking for folks to rise up violently. On the other hand, the Brazillian Gov like, Putin and Xi Jinping don't want to public to have the freedom to criticize their administration. Not so ok?
I'd argue platforms need to operate like a town square. It's vital the First Admendment rights remain protected while also protecting the public against messaging that violates such. If platforms want to curate content to what they "like" that's find. Then they need to operative like journalistic channels (WSJ, NY Times) and lose the liability protection they currently enjoy.
Comentários