There is reason to worry when the tools of defiance or rebellion are taken away. Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good.
This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government.
There is still concern that charges could be heaped on someone to the point they feel the need to plea bargain for something that is either a very minor offense or protected speech.
> Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good.
There is that little affair from 1765 to 1783 that gets generally good press, though. "Context is for kings" is tinged with irony on that one.
> This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government.
Jokes aside, any sentence which contains "no tools being taken away" around messages such as this one are is assuming too much about the future - it is entirely within the power of both executive (FCC) and legislative (Congress) to curtail the use of specific tools, including radios. It shows that someone in the agency has thought that this particular case warrants making a public statement, which is an escalation.
What's interesting to note is that the Arab Spring was largely organized on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. US media outlets were thrilled about this, and wrote article after article talking about how these platforms gave the common man the opportunity to vent about police brutality, corruption, election fraud, and unemployment in a way that simply wasn't possible previously. The general attitude at the time was that social media platforms, and the free speech they enabled, would be a force for good in the world, despite the Arab Spring involving a fair amount of violence and ultimately leading the upheaval of several countries.
Fast forward a decade later, and now the attitude is the complete opposite.
A "riot" to eject a dictator vs a "riot" to stop Congress from certifying the winner of the election/install Trump as dictator are - to my eyes - entirely different in character.
People do what it takes to survive. Trump usurping power and ending 230 years of US democracy represents an existential threat. Don't be shocked that a lot of people and companies are not on-board with that idea and are willing to take extreme measures to prevent it.
When the dictator operates a secular government and the alternative is an ochlocratic theocracy, I don't think the morality of the situation is so clear cut.
I didn't mean to imply the result is always ideal or even good. That's one of the dangers of revolutions and suppression of dissent.
I'm saying there is no reason to be surprised when you're asking platforms to ignore Trump's attempt to end democracy and they decline.
To give a hypothetical: if Trump's followers were harassing Matt Prince's family every day at home, work, and school there wouldn't be any hand-wringing about "free speech" or "censorship" from Cloudflare. Anyone related to Trump would find themselves banned in short order. That would be purely a move of self-preservation.
Similarly a lot of platforms (and donors) realize these people are no longer useful idiots but deluded to the point of ransacking the house of Congress in an attempt to overturn the election. That's really dangerous and could destabilize the country and even the world. When faced with an existential threat don't be shocked when people are unwilling to sit down and debate on behalf of MAGAs/Fox News acting in bad faith.
Another parallel: the Arab Spring revolts were hijacked by Islamists everywhere but Tunisia, and whatever legitimate complaints ("anti-hyperglobalization"?) galvanized the Trump movement in its early days were ultimately drowned out by the much louder voices of white nationalists (QAnon/PB) and apocalypse-seekers[1] who wanted to use the movement to gain power.
This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government.
There is still concern that charges could be heaped on someone to the point they feel the need to plea bargain for something that is either a very minor offense or protected speech.