11–20 of 164 posts
Basically the EFF are more concerned they don‘t ban political accounts for stuff normal people get banned for. Seems fair.
Yay EFF! Thanks for the cooked spaghetti backbone buddy.
Remarkably tepid response.
However, they can’t take the pro free speech stance here because most of their donors are generally leftists who absolutely despise Trump. So the only move is to put the mission on the back burner and kowtow to the zeitgeist.
I see. Hold your ground for free speech till... Ok, we were kidding we were just bluffing. Go ahead. We don't care. We support corporate censorship now full throat. It's for the best. We're looking out for your own good. I mean really, so you know it was in the government's purview to hold Snowden, Manning and Assange accountable to what's within their rights too. Nice to see you sway with the wind there EFF. Guess B…
Remarkably tepid response.
It has to be. EFF is pro free-speech and pro privacy (fights censorship tools and government back doors to encryption, etc). Huge powerful corporations coordinating to censor someone is antithetical to their mission. However, they can’t take the pro free speech stance here because most of their donors are generally leftists who absolutely despise Trump. So the only move is to put the mission on the back burner and ko…
https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-... :
[..]A legislative counsel member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned Friday that the suspension of President Donald Trump's social media accounts wielded "unchecked power," by Twitter and Facebook.
Kate Ruane, a senior legislative counsel at the ACLU said in a statement that the decision to suspend Trump from social media could set a precedent for big tech companies to silence less privileged voices.[..]
I see. Hold your ground for free speech till... Ok, we were kidding we were just bluffing. Go ahead. We don't care. We support corporate censorship now full throat. It's for the best. We're looking out for your own good. I mean really, so you know it was in the government's purview to hold Snowden, Manning and Assange accountable to what's within their rights too. Nice to see you sway with the wind there EFF. Guess B…
Hosting and publishing certain speech is a liability.
Why should the state dictate what a corporation must allow on their own servers facilitated by the services they created?
Should the state force YouTube to include videos no advertiser wants to be associated with?
EFF's statement is consistent with protecting digital rights.