Don't look now, but the Supreme Court is now looking seriously at some important cases involving Internet companies. Should they be treated like media companies? As a public square? They are private companies - how does that factor in?temporal1 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:46 pm “Fact is” internet and media interference is a major topic, and has been for a few years, there are several MN threads on it,
Congress and the White House are wrangling with it. Other countries are doing various things.
How to use the internet is NOT settled science. It’s in process.
Cabbage carts were invented before brakes to prevent them from careening over cliffs.
Is restricting content moderation constitutional?
Are tech companies more like publishers or public utilities?
Can the government stop social media companies from doing content moderation that the government does not approve of? NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice are about that.
Should social media companies be required to allow all speech? Or allowed to restrict attacks and threats? Pornography? Political disinformation? Bullying? If it does content moderation, should it be required to convince politicians that it is doing so fairly? Would politicians be fair in assessing them?
These aren't simple questions ...