@RonaldTooTall That is a terrible article. The first sentence is just blatantly wrong.
@rabbitt @RonaldTooTall Well, no, they have the right to do whatever they want with posts because users agreed to that before choosing to put their speech on the company's private property in the first place.
But 1A absolutely protects messages on social media platforms. The government can't suddenly punish people for their speech just because they wrote it on social media.
@LouisIngenthron @RonaldTooTall
I think we get confused about the generic term “social media”, thinking it means PUBLIC media when in reality it has always been private media that manipulates and controls what is viewed. The federated platform that Mastodon uses operates more like a true “public” platform. How SCOTUS rules on this is still up in the air, but my guess is that they will rule that private companies will continue to have discretion about screening posts.
@rabbitt @RonaldTooTall Of course they will. That's been set as precedent for years now. It's how the law is written. And it's consistent with 1A jurisprudence overall.
@LouisIngenthron @RonaldTooTall
On the contrary, the first sentence is correct as to previous interpretations. Because META, X, etc. are privately owned, they have the power to do whatever they wish with posts. However, if the forum was an official government platform, then the rules must change to allow everyone to post their views. What needs to be clarified is whether a political entity can claim to have an “official” website on a private platform!