At what point will it be universally understood that "free speech" is only legally binding when a person is speaking with the government. The government cannot limit a person from speaking outside of libel and slander. (Note the successful Dominion lawsuits against Fox News, you can't say _anything_ you want if it materially harms a person or a legal entity).
A private corporation like Twitter/X, Facebook, and now Bluesky can implement any moderation policies they want, and it will never violate "free speech" laws. Elon Musk can filter and restrain the speech he doesn't like (mostly liberal speech and external links that he can't monetize) and Zuck can do the same. Bluesky only moderates illegal activity itself like CSAM. All other moderation is done by the community, and each person chooses who to follow, block, or mute who they wish.
The government could enact regulation to limit corporate moderation (debatable, but a given with the current SC) but it would be a very extreme step to restrict the individual from moderating their own timelines on Bluesky.
It's hinted that Carr might try to regulate Bluesky, but the outcome wouldn't match his expectations. You see, Bluesky is an open network. It would be simple for every user to implement their own data server and only communicate on the open network. The government would have no way to control that network outside of radical national firewall filtering like China's Great Firewall.
> At what point will it be universally understood that "free speech" is only legally binding when a person is speaking with the government
That is not what "free speech" means, that is what current US free speech laws does. Free speech itself include all censorship from big organizations, regardless if it is a government or not, the important part is if you have large organized censoring then its against free speech.
So it is totally valid to say you want to protect free speech by limiting the ability for large corporations to censor people.
Bluesky can implement any moderation policies they want, and it will never violate "free speech" laws.
Would that be legal for Bluesky, assuming no coercion from any government actors?
At what point will it be universally understood that "free speech" is only legally binding when a person is speaking with the government.
Given how little the US invests in public education, probably never
>Given how little the US invests in public education, probably never
While I understand the sentiment, this isn't factually true: from figures I've seen, the US actually spends more per student in pre-college schooling than any other nation.
It's a lot like the US healthcare system: the US spends (much) more per-capita, but gets much worse results overall. The problem isn't the level of funding, but how it's used and who runs it.
Another factor is US education is that the funding is largely from local sources and locally controlled, so if you live in a wealthy county, you might have (relatively) very good schools, while kids in poor counties will have poorly-funded schools. This is mostly a problem unique to the US because it loves keeping power at local levels so much.
> private corporation like Twitter/X, Facebook, and now Bluesky can implement any moderation policies they want, and it will never violate "free speech" laws
Simply not true in the state of California where most of these companies are based.
According to the CA supreme Court, you have a right to free speech on private property that is regularly available for public use.
By that metric all of these companies are blatantly violating the constitution of their home state.