[Russia does a thing] Lets talk about the US.
Proof is the extent to which Alex Jones types of figures have yet to be totally banned by the government, just deplatformed by private social networks.
That being said the conversation about Tik Tok and Chinese ownerships and servers did seem to get close to this.
I truly believe that if most Russians could SEE the death and destruction Putin is causing, he might actually get deposed.
I truly believe that's wishful thinking. Even if most Russians hated Putin, as long as he's got control over a strong domestic security apparatus and continued support from his cronies, he's not going to get deposed.
'Weibo banned in the USA' is very different.
I believe Twitter and AWS should have seperately defined rights as to who they can kick off and why.
My domain provider or webhost should have very limited and specific scenarios/structured protocols in regards to people asking for my contact information, how they can treat me when receiving any random unverified DMCA requests, etc. There should be no part of the protocol where they hand out my information without my knowledge, and without my consent, and without verifying the requestor, without fully informing me of every step they take before they do it, and without my right to object.
If it were security, then it still would be, and we'd still be having the discussion. It was about Trump, so when Trump lost interest or the ability to cause hassle, the problem also went away.
[1] https://deadline.com/2022/03/rt-america-to-halt-production-a...
At least that's what I've seen people say, and it sounds quite plausible.
So in that regard there is some way that the web gets policed in the US.
There is an ideological dispute about how big a difference that is.
Many years ago, I identified as an anarchist (not anymore). While I was an anarchist, I followed intently the debates between anarcho-socialists (left anarchists) and anarcho-capitalists (right anarchists). A major part of the debate was whether it made a difference whether someone doing something was the government or a private entity. From the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, the public-private distinction has a fundamental philosophical, ideological, political and moral significance – governments and private corporations are radically different kinds of entities, whose actions ought to be judged by very different standards. From the anarcho-socialist viewpoint, the public-private distinction is largely artificial, arbitrary, irrelevant – governments and private corporations are just two slightly different flavours of the same soup.
Although few people involved in these debates over the possibility of "censorship by private corporations" would identify as anarchists (of either variety), I think the same distinction is at play here; but, unlike those anarchist debates, the parties in the "censorship by private corporations" debate seem less aware of the role that fundamental difference may have in motivating their respective positions.
By "society", do you mean a loud minority of blue checkmarks on Twitter?