Comment

Comment by sanity

> They’re about politicians ensuring that a favored constituency has access to someone else’s megaphone to spread a message

I think this is an inaccurate characterization. Over the past 20 years content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers. If the platform's willingness to abuse this power had been apparent from the start they would never have become so powerful.

People created their own "megaphones" over many years only for the platform to start dictating to them how they can communicate with the audiences they've built, often based on naked political animus. It was a bait and switch - a fraud.

That said, having listened to most of the oral arguments I think SCOTUS will strike down these laws.

The fundamental problem is that the Internet centralizes power in a small number of corporations which then become ripe for capture by powerful interests, whether political, ideological, or commercial.

IMO the ultimate solution is a decentralized Internet like https://freenet.org/ that doesn't require creators to hand over control of their voices to powerful third parties.

parent sanity 2 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton