No, they really haven't. This is a LOLSuit of the worst form. He didn't even file in an appropriate district.

> This imputed Washington - SV nexus will be the fulcrum of the suit.

This doesn't and couldn't exist.

If you want to understand the purpose of the suit, check out the email they sent to his follower list as soon as the press conference was over:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5tKUD9WQAoJ82z?format=jpg&name=...

Just endless grifting.

"This doesn't and couldn't exist"

Rep. Angie Craig (D, MN) questions Mark Zuckerberg in a Congressional hearing: "Facebook allows Rep. Greene's (R, GA) video to remain online. Is that right, yes or no?"

https://youtu.be/vsA4u7i20_0

I'm not sure how this relates to anything.. expand?

The argument from GG is basically that Congress intimidates Big Tech into deplatforming viewpoints that the culturally dominant party (Democrats) disagree with. The OP references Rep Craig asking Zuckerberg if it's "right" to "allow" her republican colleague Rep Greene to post content on Facebook. The implication is that Rep Craig is heavily implying it's not right, and therefore, if Facebook wants to be on the "good side" of Rep Craig (the Democrats), it shouldn't host Rep Greene's content.

It should be fairly obvious why large companies want to be in the good graces of lawmakers. It's reasonable for Sundar Pichai or Mark Zuckerberg to think that angry lawmakers lead to more anti-trust lawsuits than happy lawmakers.

The problem is actually that both sides are angry at Big Tech, but for opposing reasons. The Democrats don't like that Republican content is the most popular on Facebook, and the Republicans don't like that Facebook doesn't deplatform Democrats engaging in the same or worse behavior as any deplatformed Republican.

Both of their concerns are understandable, and stem from the power of "deplatforming" – ever since the deplatforming of Alex Jones, this situation was inevitable. As soon as the platforms set a precedent for what's "bad," they created future obligations for themselves. Because they need to be consistent, right? So if you took down this "bad" thing, why not take down this other "bad" thing? Well, it turns out people have different definitions of "bad," and so that's where most of this vitriol originates.

I appreciate the detailed response but it's an astonishingly silly argument.

Facebook has a 1st amendment right to host whatever content they want.. any desire toward consistency is entirely self-imposed. They could ban every single Democratic politician tomorrow if they wanted and people would be outraged, but the US government rightfully protects private companies from government-compelled speech.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. But it doesn't stop me from understanding both perspectives, each of which at least originates from a logical place (before morphing into political soundbites that must survive in an environment that selects for emotional engagement, not logical coherence).

Personally, I continue to believe that the algorithmic newsfeed is the primary source of these problems. Perhaps that's where we can find some common ground to take a logical first step. I propose that we regulate any Newsfeed with >100m impressions per day, to require and default to a "chronological" sorting order, with any preference expiring after 30 days.

She is exhibit A in Greenwald's essay lambasting Congress for pressuring SV to censor speech they find objectionable.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-in-a-five-hour-hea...

His argument is that congress outsourced its authority to censor? Does Congress even have the authority to censor?

The argument is that congress knows it does not have the authority to censor so instead they brow beat the tech companies into doing it for them in the form of dragging executives before congress and using the bully pulpit.