The wording in this article appears partisan and could use rework. (Also the way Substack visually embeds other articles in the middle of this one makes this one look like it ends earlier than it really does.)
People on Team-Right are (justifiably) upset that YouTube removed accounts and censored content and haven't yet gotten closure on that issue. It's still a (very) sore issue and needs acknowledgement to strike a non-partisan tone.
I'd suggest doing that higher in the article ("above the fold" -- in this case the embedded Kimmel article, perhaps even near the "if you care about free speech" line) would get readers that didn't read the whole article.
In addition, it would be useful to spend more time talking about the Biden administration's efforts instead of just "they’re suing the wrong people" and moving on. YouTube recently publicly admitted that happened, so does that constitute jawboning in your view? If so, will anything come of that? If not, is the reason not that only YouTube has standing to sue and they're not likely to now the administration has changed? If that's the case, how do people who care about the First Amendment affect better change around jawboning if the only people with standing aren't interested to defend themselves?
(That last one would make a very interesting stand-alone "Expression" article as a lot of people seem to be wondering how we hold the government accountable and because this keeps happening across different administrations.)
Your analysis in this article is spot-on, as usual. And I agree with your points. But I also want FIRE to try to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Our country depends on it. :-)
I agree with another commenter below. the lack of inclusion to the biden admin's 'greatest assault on the 1st amendment' - is a gigantic miss. That comment was made in the dissenting opinion from Alito & Thomas when the supreme court dismissed the suit for the plaintiff's lack of standing in the murthy v missouri case.
it begs the question: is this an argument based on principle or is censorship only bad when it happens to me?
not including the biden's attack on 1a is like jake tapper's comments on the kimmel saga or another cnn dunce acosta and his ridiculous book and grandstanding. both of whom were mute when the biden admin was pressuring big tech to censor americans '21-'24.
Besides CBS and possibly Columbia, none of these capitulations seem to make much sense from a self-interested perspective. There's something else going on here.
The wording in this article appears partisan and could use rework. (Also the way Substack visually embeds other articles in the middle of this one makes this one look like it ends earlier than it really does.)
People on Team-Right are (justifiably) upset that YouTube removed accounts and censored content and haven't yet gotten closure on that issue. It's still a (very) sore issue and needs acknowledgement to strike a non-partisan tone.
I'd suggest doing that higher in the article ("above the fold" -- in this case the embedded Kimmel article, perhaps even near the "if you care about free speech" line) would get readers that didn't read the whole article.
In addition, it would be useful to spend more time talking about the Biden administration's efforts instead of just "they’re suing the wrong people" and moving on. YouTube recently publicly admitted that happened, so does that constitute jawboning in your view? If so, will anything come of that? If not, is the reason not that only YouTube has standing to sue and they're not likely to now the administration has changed? If that's the case, how do people who care about the First Amendment affect better change around jawboning if the only people with standing aren't interested to defend themselves?
(That last one would make a very interesting stand-alone "Expression" article as a lot of people seem to be wondering how we hold the government accountable and because this keeps happening across different administrations.)
Your analysis in this article is spot-on, as usual. And I agree with your points. But I also want FIRE to try to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Our country depends on it. :-)
I agree with another commenter below. the lack of inclusion to the biden admin's 'greatest assault on the 1st amendment' - is a gigantic miss. That comment was made in the dissenting opinion from Alito & Thomas when the supreme court dismissed the suit for the plaintiff's lack of standing in the murthy v missouri case.
Matt Taibbi had an interesting perspective: https://www.racket.news/p/no-things-arent-worse-now-on-speech.
it begs the question: is this an argument based on principle or is censorship only bad when it happens to me?
not including the biden's attack on 1a is like jake tapper's comments on the kimmel saga or another cnn dunce acosta and his ridiculous book and grandstanding. both of whom were mute when the biden admin was pressuring big tech to censor americans '21-'24.
Besides CBS and possibly Columbia, none of these capitulations seem to make much sense from a self-interested perspective. There's something else going on here.
What a bunch of cowards for caving to a mentally ill bully. I'm going to miss some YouTube posts but I can hope they move to a place with guts.