undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxienze5y ago0 comments

> To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two.

You're technically right, but in practice it really doesn't matter that the "government" can't censor you when the modern "public square" is held almost entirely by private companies. The government doesn't really hold any power in shaping modern public discourse anymore, tech companies do! Now the fact that said private company's ideals line up closely with one certain political party is just a coincidence, I'm sure.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-uzz5VsAEA2Go?format=jpg

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

hinkley5y ago

You could look at this like private citizens trying to block access to public lands (beaches) in order to make them de facto private.

Federated apps are trying to establish a commons, right? If Google can block access, then there is no commons. If the government can force easements on private land owners, I suspect the EFF could make a case for the same for App stores.

Nobody would be making Google host the Commons, just access. This is a much simpler case IMO than forcing Twitter or Facebook to carry messages they don’t want.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse