I think restrictions are an essential condition in the fight for freedom of expression. It’s also a source for any kind of creativity.

It is tough problem for platforms like Twitter and Facebook. They exist to allow people to share their thoughts and ideas … One of the things that I would like to see more of is, not to stop people from sharing things … but to warn them… So, when I am about to share something, and a reputable fact checking organization has shown it is a hoax, I would like Facebook to warn me “Hey … you might want to check, if this is true or not, before you share it”. I think that would be very helpful.

[Social media companies] are private platforms. They have... as much right as Bloomberg or as The New York Times... to decide whom they will allow to use their platform. There is no first amendment right to use private property or a private platform to get your views out, and if your views are causing violence and death, the private platform itself ought to be held responsible for not taking you off.

Facebook would be blocked across the country throughout the entire period. While they are "not comfortable" with the decision, "we should not passively stand in front of such a possible leak".

Let’s Regulate Social Media Instead Of Enacting Draconian Laws

I've seen the argument saying, 'Well, these are private companies, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and whatever. They have the right to ban whoever they want. They can set their own rules. They should just make up rules to get rid of Alex Jones.' It seems pretty fair, right? Their playground, their rules. I also, kind of disagree. I think that social media has grown so big that it's become an extension of your voice, that if you are not on social media, and you are taken off of social media in a way that isn't really specified why, then it can be seen as a way of censorship.

With over a billion active users, Facebook is in a unique position to influence the world by enabling Facebook users to create grassroots movements for peace.

The technology platforms are so much more powerful than any organ of the so-called mainstream press, and I do think that there has to be not just an American reckoning but a global reckoning with the disinformation, with the monopolistic power and control, with the lack of accountability that the platforms currently enjoy... In particular Facebook, which has the worst track record for enabling mistruths, misinformation, extremism, conspiracy, for goodness’ sake, even genocide in Myanmar against the Rohingya. So governments are going to have to decide right now that the platforms have to be held to some kind of standard, and it’s tricky.

The tools Facebook provides make discrimination easy. Facebook has monopoly profit margins, so it could easily provide real staffing to protect against discrimination, if it wanted to. It doesn’t want to.

limitations mean freedom.

I believe that Facebook represents one of the gravest threats to democracies around the world, and I am amazed that we have allowed our freedoms to be taken away by technology companies’ greed for growth and revenues.

When Facebook is sort of grinding down your privacy, you don't see it. And although you will feel it, you won't feel it for years.... these companies have quietly created perfect records of everything you've done, everywhere you've gone, everything you've clicked, everything you've liked, how long you've stayed on a page, you know, when you had to scroll up to reread a section. All of that is captured, and they use this to model ways to influence your behavior to actually shape and manipulate the decisions you make as a human being.

Algorithms or the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not. There is no and can be no consent to censorship. Freedom of speech is the salt of democracy, for that reason we must defend it. The owners of social platforms cannot act above the law. We will suggest that similar regulations are also put in place in all of the European Union.

power has an important limitation. It has to be seen as legitimate, or else its use has the opposite of its intended effect.