But if Instagram is blocking links in DMs between second and third parties at the request of the state (which we saw happening at Twitter), then that is a different matter entirely.

What makes you think Meta would be exempt from the same pressure Twitter received, given that Meta's platform is larger?

> Instagram isn’t obligated to render text in their app in a way that you’d prefer.

They are if we pass a law saying that they are. Suggesting such a law be passed is just normal democracy.

By exactly the same argument, OP's "coordinated war against freedom of expression online" is also "just normal democracy."

No, because that didn’t involve any sort of legislative action and is in fact clearly contrary to legislative intent.

On the contrary: yes, because that's irrelevant; the back-and-forth between disparate interests, and over interpretations of current legislation (and the constitution, for that matter), is just what normal democracy has that is lacking from other polities.

I don’t know what to say other than that is obviously and completely incorrect and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history should know that.

It seems, then, that I am to be judged wrong just on your say-so, for no particular reason.

I wouldn’t have made the reply I did if the post I replied to was advocating passing laws about social media platforms.

Freedom of speech isn't just about what the government does.

We can dislike a platform because it's a poor means of expression and urge people to stop using it.

Dislike away, but don't justify your dislike of a specific UX using the language of human rights abuse. An app kind of sucking is not a humanitarian crisis.

Accessibility is one obvious counter-example of where a specific UX “kind of sucking” can in fact be a humanitarian crisis, albeit one that disproportionately affects disabled persons. Fortunately we have laws on the books for that and people have sued and won.

I'll grant that, but that still doesn't excuse OP making it sound like this UX issue is about freedom of expression. I'd readily believe that Instagram's UX is bad for screen readers.

UX that limits expression (not linking urls, not allowing some speech) is just that.

These apps limit expression because it makes them more money. But they still limit expression. Instagram doesn’t want you linking out of instagram so you stay and view more ads. Tiktok bans for off site bios because it wants less controversy so they sell more ads. Etc etc.

By this logic, a forum for cooking that doesn’t permit discussion of biking is “limiting expression”. As is a restaurant that doesn’t let me stand up and start singing in their dining room.

Being a private entity that allows users to express themselves isn’t a restriction on the types of expression you don’t allow. The default is that Instagram doesn’t exist, not that it exists and must all anything you want it to.

It is limiting expression. Just like removing spam. Or HN not allowing personal attacks.

The question is the extent of the limitation. And what’s “reasonable.”

If I sell you a burger, I haven’t limited your dinner.

Instagram offers what they offer. A forum for a topic or a medium offers something to you. The fact that they’ve chosen not to offer other things isn’t a limitation on your expression, any more than my burger shop is for not selling salads.

And we're allowed to say Instagram is a bad burger shop, we don't like their burgers and we don't want to buy their burgers. We can choose to do business with someone else, and make use social pressure on the people who still use Instagram.

We don't owe Instagram some sort of being nice or saying nice things. If they run a subpar business that punishes freedom of expression, we can call that out and say it sucks.

You're, of course, welcome to not like Instagram, and to not do business with them, and to do business with other people, and to suggest that other people shouldn't use Instagram.

But it's absolute baloney to claim that they punish freedom of expression because the venn diagram of "content they're willing to host on their infrastructure" and "content you want to publish" aren't perfectly aligned. Calling my burger shop bad because it doesn't serve salads is similarly baloney.

UX decisions are not humanitarian crises. Full stop.

I never suggested you couldn’t dislike a platform. I dislike eggplant, but I’m not going around saying eggplant is part of a war on broccoli consumption.

Let's say if _every_ restaurant in town, when you tried to order broccoli, gave you eggplant instead.

You say "hey, I don't want eggplant, I don't like eggplant" and the restaurants response is to say "but eggplant is really good and only bad people don't like eggplant. You aren't anti-eggplant are you?"

It's not an issue when it's one restaurant - that's just weird - but when it starts being 90%... 95%.. when they restaurants all get together and form an anti-broccoli commission, and start colluding to make selling broccoli illegal..

When the restaurants go to the Federal Government and say they need laws making broccoli illegal?

Restaurants are free to petition the government, in the same way that you're free to petition the government. And insofar as there has been lobbying to make some kinds of expression illegal, I've generally been opposed to it. But as far as I can tell, every modern example of a group lobbying the government to make kinds of expression illegal have not come from social media platforms, they've come from Republican lobbying groups trying to get books banned or drag shows banned.