Now that the President's been mass deplatformed, we see 2 conversations flying by each other. 1: raised in the legal community: notes the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to twitter/fb/ig but nevertheless argues that mass deplatforming raises troubling free speech-ish issues 1/

(from prominent lawprofs etc.), setting of bad precedents for shutting down the speech of marginalized views, & 2: raised by the disnfo watchers ( @cwarzel perceptive here) who aren't using a legal framework but talk about the entire online speech system's dysfunctionality, 2/

the inevitability of platforms highlighting the worst, distorted, conspiratorial viewpoints, the spillover IRL effects. But strikes me that the respectable civil libertarian "n4zis in Skokie" analogy comes from commentators 3/

who *DON'T LIVE ONLINE* the way the disinformation people do. The conventional marketplace of ideas heuristic feels...boomerish? *More* speech seems like a (sorry) first amendment dad idea? Makes sense if your marketplace is: public talks & lectures, streetcorner signs, etc. 4/

I've left out the content moderation folks, I know, but in the week since it happened the law's response here feels broken and out of touch. (No big observations here! Just a small one.) fin/