The legal framework and argumentation used to justify the ban is worrisome and can be applied overbroadly in the suppression of speech.
Despite this broad possible argumentation, it has just been, and will likely continue to be, wielded in a way targeted towards suppression of speech in a targeted, nationalistic, and at times overtly racist ways. (See: “Senator, I’m Singaporean, not Chinese.”)
Like it or not, it’s become a large repository of internet history and online conversation. The loss of the platform is the loss of that history.
If the government had particular problems with the platform’s practices and behaviors, it would have been able to field an actual lawsuit with real charges, or levy fines. This “sell or be banned” is a clear grab for power more than any actual gesture towards protecting the people.
The legal framework and argumentation used to justify the ban is worrisome and can be applied overbroadly in the suppression of speech.
Despite this broad possible argumentation, it has just been, and will likely continue to be, wielded in a way targeted towards suppression of speech in a targeted, nationalistic, and at times overtly racist ways. (See: “Senator, I’m Singaporean, not Chinese.”)
Like it or not, it’s become a large repository of internet history and online conversation. The loss of the platform is the loss of that history.
If the government had particular problems with the platform’s practices and behaviors, it would have been able to field an actual lawsuit with real charges, or levy fines. This “sell or be banned” is a clear grab for power more than any actual gesture towards protecting the people.