So to be clear you're advocating for tech companies to ignore the justice system?

"proactive"... how? By making rulings that you agree with? Is it fair to say that your opinion on this matter boils down to "companies should ignore the courts if it's a ruling I don't like"?

Reducing all objections to anything to "disagreement" or "not liking it" is a sure sign of bad faith discussion.

I'm not claiming that the objections are of equal merit, but a moral/legal system is clearly not going to work on a societal level if it's just going to be "it's fine to disregard the legal system if you think there's a good reason for it".

A moral system that doesn't allow one to break the law for any reason, no matter how good the reason is, can hardly be called a moral system at all. Obedience to the state is not a functional moral code.

>Obedience to the state is not a functional moral code.

What's your bar for "functional moral code"? More importantly, what makes you think the alternative (ie. "it's okay to break laws if you think there's a Really Good Reason for it") is functional?

Where did I say that?

If that's not your opinion please explain what you mean by courts being more "proactive"

By shortening enforcement timelines. In the current system, it would take years for someone to bring a case before a court and even more years before the company would pay any fines.

Courts and the government in general should be more proactive by shortening execution timelines. Shorten the time it takes to go from "Maybe tech companies shouldn't censor people" to "We're arresting Mark Zuckerberg today and he's going to jail next week" from a decade to something resembling weeks.

I'm tired of slowness. I want events to happen quickly.

>"We're arresting Mark Zuckerberg today and he's going to jail next week"

To be clear you want the state to more aggressively police/prosecute "bad" people on social networks?

Prosecution in general, not just for social networks but for everything in society, shouldn't necessarily be more aggressive, just faster.

That's literally the opposite of what the courts job is. The court rules on laws, not makes them.

Then I expect that their assets or be confiscated or people will be arrested.

Facebook might ignore the law, but bank of America won't.

So that money will be taken away from them, by the government.

Or, they could confiscate assets or arrest people in Texas. There are lots of options.

Tech companies can do whatever they want but it won't help them from becoming the scapegoat when the bubble bursts.

If they followed your advice, they would make the pending anti-trust lawsuit far easier for the prosecutor. ( Yes, a major anti-trust action is under works is what I'm hearing but first they will come for the crypto companies/exchanges who are officially allowing buy/sell of unregistered securities post-Ethereum merge)

The problem is that there is no common ground what should be censored and not. The power of selecting the subjects for censoring gives more power to companies which they should not have.

Or someone can pay for them to censor some specific topics.. Or they can censor some specific topics to appeal some political decisions which touches only one party.

The state has the power to enforce laws and court rulings with violence. Perhaps tech companies should be made aware of that fact.