[gfodor]

DMCA takedowns are defined by the legal system. The system you are describing here is completely defined by these companies. They are in their right to do so, but we ought to ask the question if we should introduce a legal structure like the DMCA to standardize it from a legal standpoint. This would cut both ways: if they de-platformed people complying with the standard, they would be in the wrong. As it is right now, AWS can just arbitrarily decide the standard. The only incentive they have to make it a reasonable one is public outcry, which is not the kind of backstop you want when it comes to possibly harming fundamental freedoms.

[yashap]

Yeah, at the moment companies are pretty free to refuse service like this, based on their own policies, but I think there’s a decent argument for a legal framework. The biggest tech companies are indeed a core place that communication happens, I believe formalizing what types of content should and shouldn’t be moderated could be a good idea.

This would be very contentious, though. Many, many Americans would be strongly against the government telling private companies how to moderate speech on their platforms. It may even be unconstitutional - would a formal, legal framework represent the government restricting free speech?

[gfodor]

It really depends on the details. We already have very strong legal standards around what speech is legal under the 1st amendment. If the laws surrounding corporate governance of speech effectively extend that framework into the private sector, that would probably be a fruitful debate - those who most support corporate agency are also most likely to support speech freedom maximalism. (At least, that was probably the case until recently, since now I think a lot of people are unfortunately changing their minds around how damaging large monopolistic tech companies are for society since they're seeing them flex their unprecedented power in a direction they agree with.)