This sort of shallow minded statement always boils down to “but we should still censor the stuff I don’t like and of course I assume everyone agrees with me”
Sorry but it’s obvious you’ve never worked on this issue. It’s not easy.
It's far from shallow minded. In Germany that's actually how the law is interpreted.
The theory is that under an indirect third party effect free speech becomes effectively limited, if large companies censor people. As a result they can be compelled not to do so within reason. For example, if a social media platform bans you, you can sue them and they have to show that they have sufficient reason and that they gave you opportunity to appeal etc. If they fail, they have to unban you.
The german term you want to look for is "mittelbare Drittwirkung". On this particular topic there is an interesting case from the Bundesgerichtshof about facebook accounts that were banned. German press release: https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/do...
I find interesting that you’ve inserted that in, when they bring in the idea that these companies should actually be held accountable under the 1st Amendment. Probably one of if not the strongest codification of our right to freedom of speech in history.
I’m not quite convinced you’ve worked on this issue before yourself. What is the solution you’ve been working on?
Sorry for rolling my eyes a bit at this “what’s your solution?” Playground challenge.
Anyone who has worked at f/m/a/g has worked on global application of local ideals and the user base each being enraged you don’t apply their local ideals globally.
“Obviously the first amendment” is a great example of this.
Don’t be sorry, I was already laughing at your “it’s obvious you’ve never worked on this issue” comment far before this, because I’m still not convinced you’re any more knowledgeable in this field.
I’m well aware people get upset when companies outside of their culture don’t follow said culture to a tee. However, we are talking of a US company censoring US presidential candidates in a way directly contradictory to the laws they abide by. This is local ideals being applied to a local business, so excuse me if I’m a little less than sympathetic to the plight of Google dealing with an “enraged” foreign user base when they can’t even please a local one.
Additionally, if your account is supposedly no longer active, due to an anti-censorship protest, why are you replying? And in a way that tries to sideline the problem of mass censorship by moving the problem to “but the people complain otherwise, they want this”?
Let me ask you. Why are you so confrontational about this. Why are you trying to do a bunch of “oh gotcha” style comments that sound sorta silly.
I’ve worked in this in search quality and android. At a leadership level. I don’t anymore. That’s all.
We don’t just think “hey the first amendment!” We think it terms of practical utility return for users and the company. While attempting to accommodate hyper fluid and often incoherent local requirements. That’s it. It’s not a grand conspiracy.
Sorry but it’s obvious you’ve never worked on this issue. It’s not easy.