I absolutely agree that making false medical claims in advertising is not protected speech. Fraud and threats are already criminal and should treated as such, but the types of speech that are being censored are not primarily illegal forms of speech. The types of speech that are being censored are not limited to cases of fraud or threats, they are whatever types of speech the current executive branch deems harmful. I think that is dangerous, even if I also personally agree that those particular types of legal speech are indeed harmful.

How so? The government/corporate power does not have the power or right to dictate truth.

While there are specific laws against fraud and false advertising there is no law that what is published in the public square must be true.

From my perspective this is not a slippery slope argument as the violation of our rights are already taking place. Combined government and corporate power are already censoring legal speech. It is just more difficult to oppose because I mostly disagree with and find odious the speech that is being censored.

I think that not opposing this government censorship is a mistake and not just because of the principle.

While I do think the principle of freedom of speech, press, assembly etc are important principles, it is also true that censorship will tend to favor the right in their political aims more than it will help the left. The right has corporate and institutional power at their disposal and it is used to defend the status quo. It is the left that needs freedom of speech to disseminate their ideas. The right can simply rely on the existing power structures to maintain their ideological hegemony. It is the left must agitate and convince others that there are better ways of doing things.

Yes, but this could easily go the other way. A far right executive could use its power to pressure these companies to remove what it considers misinformation.

This is clearly a violation of the first amendment as misinformation, disinformation and malinformation are by definition protected forms of speech.

I think I agree with the judge here in that the government should not be pressuring social media to censor legally protected speech. It is no matter if that speech is true or untrue, as long as it is protected speech the government should not have the power to censor speech it does not agree with.

One can easily imagine a right wing executive pressuring social media to remove speech it seams false or malevolent. The things the right view as misinformation, malinformation or disinformation would be expansive I am sure, and would no doubt target women's health, trans liberation or any attempt by the working class to organize. The government should not have this power to censor speech that is covered by the first amendment.

My old eyes really appreciate the granularity of the font sizing options in the latest update. What a great app!

Wow! It is fixed for me now. Absolutely amazing! Thank you so much for this awesome app. I really love it. You are a hero!

This is exactly what I did. It is working so far.