Eegore wrote on 09/01/22 at 20:03:40:At what point does this really become a freedom of speech violation?
When the privately owned social media companies are either not privately owned, or the Constitution is amended to indicate even private businesses, and individual owners, like this forum for instance, can be criminally prosecuted for not allowing everyone to use it.
No, you’re wrong. That same media is used by the government to inform its citizens of emergencies. Which means the government is very well aware of the influence those platforms have on the general public.
When government agencies in lock step executive or legislative branch, step in and use those platforms to directly interfere in an election by withholding information damaging to their preferred political opponent or by encouraging publication of false information to benefit their preferred political opponent, that’s censorship.
Social media and media in general have grown so large and influential that any forcible attempt by the government to alter content for devious political means is no different then the historical meaning of censorship such as Pravda as an example.