No, “regulation” is different than just not allowing them to regulate. The case is very simple: they enjoy an exemption from liability for content published on their platforms that publishers such as newspapers do not. The reason: promotion of free speech. Either they give up that exemption, and get sued every time someone posts libelous content on their platform, or get out of the business of regulating content on any other basis other than that it’s illegal under the First Amendment or not. In other words, they have no basis for removing content that is otherwise protected under the First Amendment.
While I generally agree, it has little to do with protected speech.
The crux of the matter is that they claim freedom from liability based upon their claim they do not police content.
Yet they police content as any other publisher does.
Yes, they are trying to have it both ways. And soon the courts will hammer them for it. And somebody will get rich. Maybe dozens.
But I contend they can police content if they wish to do so.
And that freedom will cost them billions.
Well put.
Additionally, as a publicly held company, these vivid exhibitions of biased censorship are completely taboo; they damage the company’s stock, which is a violation of the corporation’s fiduciary duty to its shareholders.
Any action taken by a company that damages the market value of its stock, harms investors and can be taken up with the SEC in a complaint. If the action was not in direct furtherance of the company’s business plan, and especially if the action was blatantly contrary to it, the company can be sued, assessed punitive damages and made to restore lost value to its investors.
Fascistbook is playing cat-and-mouse with some very big sharks in very deep regulatory waters.