nfgivivu

It's in the article this twitter thread is discussing.

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformat...

You have an argument if it was purely for court issued warrants and subpoenas.

But it's not for that. These portals are specifically for the government to censor people and infringe on the first amendment. These portals are evil and I hope these people go to jail.

It's because most people can't handle hypotheticals very well in general.

Assuming social networks are common carriers means also assuming that laws and law enforcement would need to adapt to the resulting spam filled environment. People would also need to adjust the way they communicate online, you'd need to create something similar to google plus circles to allow free and open discussion that is self moderated. You'd need new forms of trust protocols. You'd need...

Most people just can't fathom how much would need to change to make the internet work. They try to fit in what we have now and just say well that won't work so you're wrong.

I've noticed people also struggle with the big tech censorship argument. The amount of times I've said, censorship laws should extend to social networks and been met with "censorship only applies to government" arguments as if that wasn't the exact premise my argument started with just boggles the mind. Yes, I know, they're private companies, I'm advocating for changing laws so they do apply, not applying laws that don't apply.

I'd settle for developers just making sure events were events that have happened and not action commands they want to happen.

Nothing is worse than an event driven system polluted with action commands.