Thread by @akoz33

Khodorkovsky on Social media censorship:

These companies are protected by society and exist only because society considers their existence to be a public good (in particular, they depend on infrastructure that is not of their own

their property is protected by copyright laws etc ...). Accordingly, these companies, in significant matters, must consider the public good or society may compel them to do so. Otherwise, they would lose the legal basis and rules for resolving labor conflicts, and much more

(imagine that Trump's supporters disconnect Facebook and Twitter from telecommunications and electricity, for example) ..

Even more important is the question of what is in this situation is public good. On one side of the scale is the risk of Trump provoking a public conflict

on the other is the risk of misusing the ability to restrict political opponents' access to public communication. My subjective opinion is below.

The second risk (abuse of the extrajudicial ability to disconnect opponents from all or part of communications) is the risk of establishing a dictatorship, and therefore huge.

The first risk, that is Trump himself - well, this is the price for the mistakes of the American political elite, and the victims of this conflict are the price one always has to pay for freedom.

But this payment is smaller than the payment for dictatorship.

It is necessary to resolve such a conflict without encroaching on fundamental rights and freedoms. Otherwise the medicine will be worse than the disease. We in Russia know this very well.

P.S. It should be noted that question of the legality of closing these accounts has divided the American legal community, which means that it would be reasonable to resolve the issue after a serious discussion in the courts.

P.P.S Trump tried to repeal Section 230, which now allows him to argue about violation of his rights !! The irony of the fate of a would be autocrat ..