Fortunately the US federal government is standing up for the interests of US tech companies, and for the principle of free speech. They won't let the EU get away with such an extreme authoritarian move.

▲

a_ba 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

This administration is not standing up for the principles of free speech. It has violated this principle numerous times in action and in spirit.

▲

pessimizer 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> for the principle of free speech

This administration is taking a newly-formed censorship regime that was largely operated by the nepo babies of politicians running do-nothing tax-supported nonprofits, but implemented and operated by Mossad agents, and removing the nepo babies from the loop.

You can say "retard" now, but if you call somebody who executes Palestinian children a retard, you're going on a government blacklist.

edit: This post has been classified and filed, and associated with me for the rest of my life.

▲

jajko 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Interest of tech companies (or more specifically their stockholders), for sure. Not so much for the long term interests of its citizens though.

▲

myvoiceismypass 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> for the principle of free speech

Indeed. You are free to praise the president or face the consequences. Some freedom.

▲

int_19h 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm very skeptical of EU censorship, but EU citizens can and should figure it out for themselves. There's no reason why we Americans should be telling them how to run their economies, nor do we have some intrinsic right for our companies to operate in any random market.

▲

ktosobcy 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can the US and ef-of and keep this civil and social enshitification to itself? The rest of the world would be very happy if the US would finally put the wall around itself and stopped meddling with every darn scrap of the world...

▲

maleldil 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> standing up for the interests of US tech companies

Imagine if they stood up for the interests of citizens instead.

▲

miltonlost 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Lol a content algorithm is not free speech

▲

krapp 5 days ago | parent [-]

All software is free speech, end of.

It's insane that the same community that rails against attempts to police encryption, that believes in the ethos of free software, that "piracy isn't theft" and "you can't make math illegal" and that champions crypto/blockchain to prevent censorship is so sympathetic to banning "content ordering algorithms."

The problem is not the algorithms, the problem is the content, and the way people curate that content. Platforms choosing to push harmful content and not police it is a policy issue.

Is the content also free speech? Yes. But like most people I don't subscribe to an absolutist definition of free speech nor do I believe free speech means speech without consequences (absent government censorship) or that it compels a platform.

So I think it's perfectly legitimate for platforms to ban or moderate content even beyond what's strictly legal, and far less dangerous than having governments use their monopoly on violence to control what sorting algorithms you're allowed to use, or to forcibly nationalize and regulate any platform that has over some arbitrary number of users (which is something else a lot of people seem to want.)

We should be very careful about the degree of regulation we want governments to apply to what is in essence the only free mass communications medium in existence. Yes, the narrative is that the internet is entirely centralized and controlled by Google/Facebook/Twitter now but that isn't really true. It would absolutely become true if the government regulated the internet like the FCC regulates over the air broadcasts. Just look at the chaos that age verification laws are creating. Do we really want more of that?

	▲	op00to 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		End of what?