>they can patrol their own platforms, but they will not patrol their own platforms out of the goodness of their hearts unless it affects their bottom line, or a law makes them fear prosecution.
We already see what happens when government delegates law enforcement to corporations: AML/ATF regulations that financial institutions have to follow. The idea is basically the same: "banks can patrol their own customers, but they will not patrol their own customers out of the goodness of their hearts unless it affects their bottom line, or a law makes them fear prosecution". The result? People getting randomly banned because some aspect of them or their transaction info contained something tangentially related to something that's sanctioned[1]. The calculus clearly favors companies being trigger-happy than not. If some Al-Qaeda transaction goes through and the media gets wind of it, they'll get fined and/or raked over the coals by regulators and legislators. The reverse happens and the most is some grumbles but you still stay in business. I fully expect the same dynamic to happen for social media companies. Anything that can vaguely be considered offensive will be taken down. Imagine the youtube demonetization debacle, but worse.
The right middle ground may be some susceptibility to court orders. E.g. Google shouldn't have to patrol files stored in Google Drive, but a court should be able to get a search warrant for a Drive or order files to be removed. YouTube shouldn't have to proactively search for ElsaGate content, but should have to comply with law enforcement orders to help law enforcement find out why it is happening.
I mean should a private company like Snapchat be making money off of fentanyl dealers? There are plenty of alternatives. I guarantee Snapchat already reports child pornographers.
We already see what happens when government delegates law enforcement to corporations: AML/ATF regulations that financial institutions have to follow. The idea is basically the same: "banks can patrol their own customers, but they will not patrol their own customers out of the goodness of their hearts unless it affects their bottom line, or a law makes them fear prosecution". The result? People getting randomly banned because some aspect of them or their transaction info contained something tangentially related to something that's sanctioned[1]. The calculus clearly favors companies being trigger-happy than not. If some Al-Qaeda transaction goes through and the media gets wind of it, they'll get fined and/or raked over the coals by regulators and legislators. The reverse happens and the most is some grumbles but you still stay in business. I fully expect the same dynamic to happen for social media companies. Anything that can vaguely be considered offensive will be taken down. Imagine the youtube demonetization debacle, but worse.
[1] eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35337210, or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450828