I am a CEO of a private company, and I am personally opposed towards too much interference by government in my business processes or projects. I am against regulation of AI development, and I am unhappy about the UK Labour party proposals to force 250+ employee businesses to give a stake in the companies to their employees.
However, I am happy for government to regulate content on social media companies. Yet, I accept the right of a company such as Google to close the social media accounts of the Syrian government, even if these actions look like dubious acts of censorship.
My positions are based upon my love of liberty. The private individual and private business have a liberty to be free of regulation from government apart from what is basic and essential such as paying tax, unless the activities of individual and business is causing others to lose their liberty. I argue that liberty is a two-way process, so that if one side denies liberty to another, then all has lost that liberty. When Elon Musk for instance accuses an innocent man of being a paedophile, he has undermined a liberty to both the innocent man, himself, and society.
In the Hampstead SRA Hoax case the medical reports of two children who were medically examined as part of an investigation into sex abuse is being posted all over the internet with their names and faces by vigilantes, which denies them their liberties of privacy and anonymity. The internet companies either refuse or are unable to remove this abusive content from their platforms, so everyone has lost their liberties because internet companies failed to uphold the liberties of those children. This causes me to call upon government to uphold the liberties of the innocent and regulate social media companies such as Twitter by making them accountable for the content they have been asked to remove from their platforms.
Every individual and business could see liberty as a two-way process rather than as a final state, one that is lost the moment one side denies that liberty to another. It is about being a good neighbour to each other in choice and deed that I see how the liberties for everyone is upheld. As an individual for instance, I am a good neighbour to birds by providing water to them during the drought, and a good neighbour to those who live next door by removing a overgrowing vegetation that troubled them.
As a CEO, I have to remind myself that my business is anchored in community and society, that what I and my business does either harms or benefits others. I place emphasis on the meaning, legacy and impact I have upon this world through my business processes, choices and products. As longs as what I do is being a good neighbour to community and society, I demand that my business enjoys liberty of having as little interference from government as possible. Making money is the primary goal of my business, but being a good neighbour runs a close second.
If Twitter wants to delete my personal account with them, I will be annoyed, but I will not whine about it, they are a private business, its their platform, their rules, they can do as they like. If I had some paid contract with them, and Twitter failed to deliver their end of the deal, it would be a contract dispute, and I would take Twitter to court. However, if Twitter is failing to remove abusive images from the platform that is hurting children when asked to do so, they are denying liberties to innocent vulnerable individuals of my community and of society, and I will want Twitter held accountable and regulated by government because they wiped out a liberty for everyone.