Facebook's censorship board members have voluntarily assumed immense power to control the speech of hundreds of millions of users
That is very nearly sovereign power
There's a reason we don't call it "harassment" and "reputational damage" when elected officials are criticized
That is very nearly sovereign power
There's a reason we don't call it "harassment" and "reputational damage" when elected officials are criticized
Note also this fetishization of "independence"
The problem with Facebook WAS their independence; as a monopoly, they could censor at their whim, without suffering meaningful market consequences
Now they have made the problem even worse, with an unelected, appointed board
The problem with Facebook WAS their independence; as a monopoly, they could censor at their whim, without suffering meaningful market consequences
Now they have made the problem even worse, with an unelected, appointed board
We don't need "independent" people making the censorship decisions at Facebook
We need democratic accountability and oversight of their power over the public square
And we need the First Amendment to bind them in the same manner it binds the federal government
We need democratic accountability and oversight of their power over the public square
And we need the First Amendment to bind them in the same manner it binds the federal government
This is very similar to the calls for an "independent" FBI or an "independent" DOJ
Liberals love "independent" boards and government agencies
Why?
Because they can be staffed by liberals, and are immune to backlash from the conservatives they might target
Liberals love "independent" boards and government agencies
Why?
Because they can be staffed by liberals, and are immune to backlash from the conservatives they might target
