All other debates are just special cases of it.
The 1A debates are hyper-legalized proxies for it, either arguing (correctly) that 1A means the rules can't be enforced by the government, or railing against that (usually, but not always based on the expectation the govt would side with your view)
The 230 debates are a (usually poorly informed) hyper-legalized instrumentation to that.
The shadowban/algorithm debates is -- "who sets the algorithm?" as a proxy for "who sets the rules / decides"
But about 99% of all of the different variants of the debates come down to "who sets the rules, and who enforces them".
Note also that nobody serious argues that *nobody* should set the rules or enforce them; even free-speech absolutists don't go that far.
It's just always the question of *who*.
In the olden Twitter days, the answer was "Twitter set the rules, so as to navigate the line between maximizing engagement for advertizers, but also generally (but not always) trying to steer engagement away from hateful content"
The new rules are "maximizing engagement at all costs, with engagement steered away from those who don't pay"
That's all it is.
That's how you get to conclusions like "Elon's Jet twitter account should be visibility restricted, but anti-vaxxers, far-right pundits, and anyone who pays me $8 should not"
There's no philosophical principle behind it beyond the guy in charge setting the rules based on his own interests.
You might think that he *shouldn't*, but the corporate and constitutional structure of America means he *can*, and that's what the site has become, and why it's unlikely to correct course in the future.
$44 billion for his personal microblog. I would have set up a Mastodon instance for him for $2 million. He lost out on that deal.
@Pwnallthethings
Let us not forget that foundering on the rocks also greatly inhibits course corrections.
I can easily envision #Twitter as a digital Pitcairn Island with only mutineers living in isolation on it.
History repeats itself.
#informational #authoritarianism
Is the end result of our system that has always been designed to give advantages to the wealthy and powerful. It's always been this way, because that's our Constitution. The "Founding Fathers" weren't geniuses, they were scoundrels.
One other rule: Do not make any decisions that interferes with the ego-stroking received by our Dear Leader, lest he fire us in a capricious fit.
@Pwnallthethings Curse my organic brain and its pattern-matching reflex, -- it just threw up a couple of lines from a cheesily portentous (very early - first album, 1969) King Crimson song. "Knowledge is a deadly friend/ when no-one sets the rules / The fate of all mankind, I see / is in the hands of fools".
(If you think that's portentous, try the rest of the song -- those who like their excellent Fripp guitar with heavy side-orders of mellotron and rolling timpani (and really quite awful Pete Sinfield lyrics): https://youtu.be/vXrpFxHfppI
well some nobody has a tactic or three that is good at least in theory to force liberty deniers to eat their lies but no one listens to nobody so..