As a reminder, you do not have to answer all three of these questions. You need

As a reminder, you do not have to answer all three of these questions. You need to answer at least one of them in one of your posts. And you must create TWO SEPARATE POSTS to receive full credit for this assignment. So if you answer one of my questions in your first post, your second post can be either 1) a response to another question; 2) a discussion of another aspect of the question you answered in your first post; or 3) a reply to a classmate in which you make a comment or ask a question about their post.But to receive full credit, you must post twice in each discussion. And you must answer at least one of my questions in each discussion.
As the assigned reading (p. 190) explains, U.S. law (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) states that companies that provide interactive computer services, such as Facebook, should not be treated as the publishers of the information their users post. This protects these companies from defamation lawsuits based on content their users post. Discuss a circumstance in which you think these companies–Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube (Google), etc.– are ethically entitled (if not obligated) to remove content posted by their users. Or, if you think they should not do so under any circumstances, explain why not.
The reading (p. 199) discusses how a Spanish judge viewed seven people’s use of an anonymous e-mail remailer (among other criteria) as grounds for jailing them in 2014. The judge saw their use of secure email as evidence of possible terrorist activity. The author notes that many privacy experts view the judge’s action as a dangerous legal precedent. How do you assess the judge’s decision to regard their anonymization of email communications as evidence of involvement in terrorism?
Discuss an instance when you or another person(s) were censored online. Was the censorship ethically justified? Explain why or why not.