[lern_too_spel]

"Pressured." They merely suggested that it was better for the country and for business, and most of the companies agreed. There were no threats of fines or lawsuits, and none were levied.

[Schmerika]

> There were no threats of fines or lawsuits

Weren't there huge monopoly cases being furthered against Meta, Twitter and TikTok at that time? And more action against other major tech companies

If I'm threatening you over your 'possible' monopoly with one hand, and 'politely' asking you to censor millions of stories with the other - are those things completely unrelated? Or is there possible an implied message there?

A mafioso will never tell you straight-up that they're threatening and extorting you. But if you look between the lines even a little bit you can discern the message.

(Sometimes the person delivering that message isn't even aware of the threat they're sending; afaik it's entirely possible that Lina Khan was completely genuine with her push.)

> and none were levied.

Well everyone did what they were 'politely asked', didn't they. Meta alone removed or suppressed well over a hundred million posts.

[lern_too_spel]

> Or is there possible an implied message there?

None of these antitrust cases were dropped for doing what was in their mutual interest. You're grasping at straws.

> Well everyone did what they were 'politely asked

Zuckerberg said Meta didn't do everything they were asked.

[aftbit]

This is exactly how the current CBS censorship works. The FCC said they "may" revise a rule, so CBS complied in advance by removing the political speech that the admin wanted to avoid.

[lern_too_spel]

There was no threat of revising a rule that would result in punishment of the companies. It is exactly not how the current CBS censorship works.