It'd be a huge First Amendment problem if tech companies weren't permitted to agree with the government.
In the last 3 years we had government officials directing, in very strong language, various tech companies on what was and was not allowed on their platforms. While many people might argue that tech platforms are not public squares and should be free to censor however they like, everyone should have a problem with politicians directing tech companies on what can be said on their platforms.
As an addendum, I’m always curious to hear what that camp has to say about net neutrality after arguing so vigorously against its core principles.
IMHO if you want to operate as a mass market platform and are pursuing a winner takes all business strategy you should be regulated as a common carrier (Uber, Facebook, Comcast, Google, Microsoft, cloudflare, etc).
And, as is their First Amendment right, those tech companies frequently responded with "no". This is very clear from the Twitter Files information, even if the journalists involved glossed over that point.
For example:
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-tw...
> Then-President Trump asked Twitter to take down a tweet from model and television personality Chrissy Teigen in 2019 because he saw it as “derogatory,” according to testimony from a Twitter whistleblower and former employee.
Trump has the First Amendment right to ask. Twitter has the First Amendment right - which they exercised - to decline that request.
If Trump had sent US Marshals to seize Twitter HQ when they said no, that is where we have issues.
I recommend reading judge Doughty's decision [1]. It's a long read, but well worth your time.
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
It's since been stayed; https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/14/social-media-injunc....
I read the decision. It's not so great imo by federal bench standards. Judges who write sweeping statements like, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” should not be taken very seriously. I'd say the Japanese Americans interned during WWII may like a word, given that they were allowed to neither practice the Shinto religion nor use Japanese in public gatherings.
Certainly not on the same scale of severity of the abuse of Japanese Americans, but much more massive based on the number of people affected.
Really this sort of thing should be seen as an in-kind political contribution, and the fact it’s not shows just how captured the entire judicial and regulatory branch is.
Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation. Joe Biden can request you go fuck yourself. He cannot order you to go fuck yourself. The Twitter Files make it quite clear Twitter etc. understood this distinction.
For example, here's a Twitter Files post of them saying "go get a court order" to a data request. https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604888013422485505...
That's probably not true. Volumes of case law support that even subtle pressure from the government to influence speech is a first amendment violation.
Nobody actually believes that other than right wing fundie culture warriors. Elon Musk thinks it’s complete bullshit, as does every other person who is willing to put objective facts above their personal feelings.