zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content."

Is this a violation of the 1st Amendment or a way to skirt around it?

>>memish+g3
For the most part, the US government is allowed to ask anyone to voluntarily remove anything (a few limits such as those set by the establishment clause notwithstanding). That's what happened here.

>>pcwalt+m8
If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them?

Or are they doing it under duress?

Of course it's the latter.

The US gov. has been threatening to take down social media companies for years. Do you think Twitter really wanted to upset them now?

>>simple+BN
> If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them?

Yes? When the CDC says "we recommend you get vaccinated against the flu", and you get vaccinated, you're acting voluntarily, despite the government recommendation.

>>pcwalt+UV
So, did you just not read the rest of my comment?

>>simple+XW
I disagree with the premise that the US has been threatening to take down social media companies, so I didn't feel it was worth responding to.

Also, the guidelines ask you not to write comments like that.