[amy-petrik-214]

No no no no no no. It's not as black and white as "oh they failed to obey US laws" - that is a highly deceptive portrayal of the situation! We are talking about free speech laws. What if the law says "no hate speech, according to a floating definition of hate speech drafted by those with power who are the scions of rightthink" What if the law says "no disinformation, according to the custodians of rightthink and rightinformation. Very 1984! And it's 2024, how a propos, 40 years off. "No disinformation" itself is highly dubious! Wow, there's an information expert who instantly can detect correct versus incorrect "facts"? Can they review all science ever and suss out what's right, using their infallible power? Because that's the politically constructed facade we're dealing with here.

No, Eli Musk had it figured out. Speech is free and free is speech. If someone has misinformation, let the people beat them down for it. If someone is wrong, let someone call them out.

The power to make speech is to the people, the power to call out and regulate speech is also to the people. For the state to usurp such a power, is 1984-esque big brother manipulations, for the purpose no more nor less of political control and manipulation

[ldbooth]

Your argument is no content moderation by social platforms. Your point is if it's hard, don't do it. Courts and legal interpretations exist for this reason, to parse the grey areas, and in this case they are ruling against Twitter's lack of content moderation.

Free speech doesn't equate to the freedom to spread misinformation, supporting and then organizing an attempted a military coup in Brazil.

[nec4b]

Do you perhaps have a link to the definition of misinformation. What exactly counts as misinformation? Telling someone a fact you maybe misremembered from a while ago, would that be misinformation and as such punishable?