The sweeping directive, signed Thursday, covers a range of topics including securing federal communications networks against foreign snoops, issuing tougher sanctions for ransomware gangs, requiring software providers to develop more secure products, and using AI to boost America’s cyber defense capabilities, among others.
What about privacy and actual freedom of speech or curtailling corporate cyberintrusion into oir lives? Any of that?
You have freedom of speech where the government can give it to you, stop expecting freedom of speech on platforms owned by private interests, that’s not how freedom of speech works.
The elephant in the room with statements like this is that many communication enabling technologies are more akin to utilities. Where that line is and how close to utilities they are is debatable (do we include things like Twitter? Or just low level stuff like email. Are they utilities or merely similar to them?). Especially when you consider their necessity to operate in modern society and impossibility to rebuild yourself from scratch.
I get your point. I’m not trying to suggest corporations should be forced to allow 100% actually true free speech on their platforms.
Shitter can censor you all they want, they have zero obligation to allow you to say whatever you want as it’s a privately owned website. You can run your own website and say what you want on it though, just like you can put whatever message you want on your car or on your front lawn and people are free to read it or ignore it.
Look, I genuinely get what your saying, and I’m not saying people should be allowed to say whatever they want on Twitter. I’m certainly not saying the first amendment protects them. I’m just saying a lot of forms of online communication are critical in today’s society.
Like, if I got banned from Twitter for saying I dislike Elon Musk, does that sound okay? I know it’s currently legal, I’m not saying it isn’t. But it certainly feels like an unjust restriction of my speech. Not “free speech” in the protected first amendment sense, but certainly “free speech” in the sense that people should generally be allowed to say things. The response of “just build your own website and you can say what you want” is missing the point of the reach and power massive websites have. When people say “big tech restricts free speech” this is the sort of thing they’re trying to get at, but it sounds wrong because “free speech” is a pretty loaded and ambiguous term. Treating everyone saying free speech as if they mean something about the first amendment feels disingenuous to me.
And again, let me be perfectly clear, I’m not trying to insinuate that everyone should just get free reign to post whatever hateful content or misinformation they want wherever they want. I’m just saying that private companies being able to silence you on a global scale with no recourse or way to protest it feels very wrong. I don’t have a solution and don’t know where the line should be, but corporations shouldn’t just be able to gag people arbitrarily.
Buy your free speech, just 16$ per month! No being mean to Elon allowed!
Even the nazi had free speech if you keep it in your.
What a farcical and useless understanding of “free speech” you have.
“It’s not censorship when Elon does it”
That’s exactly how it works though. You can say whatever you want on the sidewalk, once you enter a store it’s the store owner that decides if they allow you to say what you want to say.
You can say what you want on your own website, if you say it on someone else’s website they can censor you all they want.
Oops a billionaire just bought the city square. Enjoy your complimentary freedom in the designated free speech zone. Just don’t protest annoyingly…
Freedom and privacy were cancelled with Citizens United. I suggest you take up your concerns with the corporate dictatorship who doesn’t give a shit.
What shall I write on the casings?
Box 4.