This very quickly runs into a whole mess of politics, but the very short form is that, as it stands, Facebook can decide all by itself that you no longer get to speak on their platform -- they can ban you, they can restrict your ability to post, etc.

The considered motion would say "Facebook, you can't do that anymore, unless we say you can/order you to."

[removed]

[removed]

If a company is banned from banning someone cuz of hateful speech etc then it’s game on for whatever

Deplatforming is just another word for banning, disallowing a person from using their platform. Usually for conduct using said platform.

Basically they want to undermine freedom of association by forcing private entities to give a platform to Nazis.

What a lovely unbiased answer. It definitely wouldn’t be something like the people kicked off Twitter for covid “misinformation” that were later proven right.

There's a mess of constitutional issues with the government stepping in like this and essentially compelling speach and unlimited public access to what's legally a private platform.

This is true; however, there are some strong ramifications to Facebook and Twitter being basically the public square of the Internet that aren't properly addressed by simply stating that the First Amendment always constrains the government and frees private actors to do as they will.

The platform vs publisher dichotomy embodied in the Section 230 debate is one such place where they resurface.

[deleted]

[removed]

In short this would be preventing online social media platforms banning people from using their services for violations of their terms of service outside of their platform.

IE you said something on Facebook, which got you banned from twitter because it violated twitters rules.

Are you for or against? If you're for, then you might want to lean into how no violation of the agreement between the user and the service has occurred. If you're against, you'd lean into the rights of companies to choose who they do business with.

Seeing as that hasn't happened, I'm not sure it works for an example.

Alex Berenson was removed from Twitter for covid misinformation. He later sued Twitter and won. He forced them to reinstate his account because it was proven that what he was saying was not misinformation.

I wouldn't call that undermining freedom of association. You don't have to follow and can block people on twitter, for example. Just because a nazi is there doesn't mean you also being there means you support nazis by association, that's nonsensical.

That said, section 230 should not be overturned, and doing so opens a whole host of problems. Companies not associated with the government should have the ability to do what they want with their platform, within the boundaries of law. The effects of social media and its dominance in information, discourse and it's algorithmic attempt to keep you in a bubble is likely not good for society, and will have consequences we still can't foresee.

> here are some strong ramifications to Facebook and Twitter being basically the public square of the Internet

They are not a 'public square' in any way shape or form, that the internets job, alone. Anyone pushing this angle has an agenda.

Alex berenson is exhibit A. He was kicked off for covid misinformation, then later sued Twitter and won. He forced them to reinstate his account because what he said was known scientific fact at the time and not misinformation.

So yes it absolutely did happen.

[deleted]