|
|
|
|
|
by geofft
1801 days ago
|
|
Isn't the line due process of law, though? If NSO is allegedly committing a crime, then we can punish them in courts of law that are empowered and qualified to investigate the allegations fully and decide whether to deprive them of their rights. Why would we put these decisions in the hands of Big Tech? At least, that's what I heard during the debates about deplatforming Parler. It was apparently very bad for private companies to decide that a customer was engaging in distasteful but legal actions. What is the principled argument that it was not okay for AWS to take down Parler but it's okay for AWS to take down NSO? |
|
For state actions, yes. For private actors, if I suspect someone is using my services to break the law or engage in terrorism, "but your honor, I didn't have a court order confirming they were terrorists" won't cut my liability.
Parler was a free speech question because it was almost purely speech. NSO Group isn't just speaking. It's doing, and it's doing things that will bring liability for people around it.