[Matticus_Rex]

> Non-human entities aren't entitled to 1st amendment protections.

The vast majority of speech that needs to remain protected for speech to remain meaningfully free happens through non-human entities. Removing that protection is an absolutely insane step.

[ethbr1]

Happens via, but starts with individuals (or should!).

What we have now is the worst of both worlds:

- Individual speech is censored at whim by non-government platforms that are unavoidable.

- While giant companies are empowered to speak anything they want (speaking as the company).

That doesn't seem ass-backwards?

We should be prioritizing individual speech / power, and disempowering corporate speech.

[Matticus_Rex]

Non-government platforms that are "unavoidable," except that most people successfully avoid them?

[MichaelZuo]

Says who? Even the aspiring indie filmmaker wants limited liability not unlimited liability.

[ethbr1]

That's backwards reasoning though.

If limited liability is a concern... we can just create that for individuals.

I'm not convinced that Meta also needs the right to do whatever it wants, for the sake of aspiring indie filmmakers.

[Matticus_Rex]

"If limited liability is a concern... we can just create that for individuals."

> laughs in lawyer

[whimsicalism]

what if two people want to make a movie together?

[ethbr1]

Then we create some kind of liability for that situation. And then we figure out at what assemblage scale multiple people stop being a collection of individuals and start being something fundamentally different.

LLC et al. liability didn't just exist in a tablet given to humanity from god.

It was designed for a purpose, and we could design the same thing for people if we wanted, instead of granting legal corporations individuals' rights.