[Pfhreak]

There's a lot to unpack in your comment. I do want to address a few things:

> People told me that I was using a slippery slope argument when I said using the wartime powers act against "terrorism" was a quick sink to unjust presidential powers.

Is it different to you that the actions here were taken by companies, not by the government? To the best of my knowledge, there was no mandate to take these sites down.

> Be consistent

Sure, this is my original takeaway from the article -- establish clear boundaries, openly follow those rules when someone violates those boundaries. It causes confusion and uncertainty when you don't follow your published rules.

[lovich]

On your consistency point I agree. On your point about whether its different if the government or companies take the action I pose another question. Is there a difference between the results of the two when companies take more and more power every day? If a company can remove you from interacting with a majority of the internet, is that any different from the FCC or some other agency removing you?

[xupybd]

The difference is companies have the power given to them by consumers. The government has power by way of being the government.