The issue in the US has been that the executive and judiciary part of the state did nothing for four years.
As per the first sentence of the article: "Polish government wants to protect posts that do not break nation’s laws"
Putting the words "the fact that" in front of your opinion on a nuanced and controversial topic does not -- in fact -- make it a fact.
What I tried to say was that the controversy about private entities censoring other private entities should be relatively small.
That does indeed not diminish the fact that the state censoring someone is more complicated, I agree.
Here is one from the other side of the pond: Private entities setting up rules for their services and then enforcing those rules are not that controversial.
You may agree with private entities censoring now, because you disagree with the censored statements. What if the roles are reversed? What if Mark Zuckerberg runs for president and uses his platform to this end? What if whomever-you-disagree-with pays private entities to censor your newspaper / internet site?
Democratically defined censorship, enforced by the state is one thing (and already complicated). Censorship without all those guarantees is, IMHO, quite another.
If we’re talking about her recent comments, I think “strongly criticised” is a reach. The comments were essentially “Twitter was right to flag Trump's inaccurate tweets about the 2020 U.S. election, banning his account altogether was a step too far ... governments, not private companies, should decide on any limitations to freedom of speech”.
She missed the fact that freedom of speech in the US doesn’t protect incitement to violence, by law that was decided by the legislature.
https://www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b...
But anyway, I do agree that there is a problem here, in that some corporations have way too much power. I would argue that the solution is that those corporations need to be regulated and broken up into smaller parts.
So, I think we need to do something about amazon, but in this case, we also needed to do something about parler, and now amazon did that for us.
The zuckerberg example: I would argue that in that scenario, it would be (at least) equally obvious that said regulations where needed. The difference would be that in that scenario, I would argue that zuckerberg was abusing his power, but with what's happening now, I don't think that amazon is abusing their power, (because I think that amazons reason is a valid one), but I still think that they shouldn't have that much power.
I'm a bit tired, but hopefully I'm still making some sense.
If we agree that greater censorship on social media is necessary, and if private companies aren't taking on the role of censor here, I think that suggests governments must become more active in their roles as censor. What would that look like and how would it work?
So perhaps not focus on an individual Twitter account with 10 followers, but do focus on influencers, media or politicians with 10's or 100's of thousands of followers.
That's still a hairy prospect, because - justly - we are weary of censoring policitians. But if they are breaking the law, they are breaking the law (or we have to change the laws). And start with the few cases that are the most likely to be convicted. Those cases will then set precedent, be reported on in the press, and hopefully help society refind a path to legal discourse.
A bit like we do with almost all other crimes really. For exemple, when people started flaunting COVID restrictions, we did not hire thousands more officers to enforce the law. We prosecuted the most willful cases, and reported about them in the press.