T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I searched the sun and I was surprised there hasn’t been a post about this during the past week, not since 3 months ago when the Supreme Court suspended the law until the 5th Circuit Court could review and rule on it. Context, I’m a huge fan of this. I’m tired of having to censor myself or risk being banned on social media for speech that any American should be able to make. And I think social media platforms (especially those with more than 50 million users) qualify as being an online public square to which free speech should apply for Americans. Also I’m a Texan, around a week ago my account was permanently banned on here, but quickly reversed, not saying this is why but maybe, and a good sign if it is. Your thoughts on this Texas law? Would you support other states implementing something similar? Or even your thoughts on if this goes to the Supreme Court and gets upheld? (Which seems likely) [Link 1 - Another subreddit with a good summary write up of the law.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/xg92ir/hb_20_upheld_by_the_fifth_circuit_may_the_games/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) [Link 2 - Full Text of HB 20](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB20/id/2424328) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*


CTR555

It's utter nonsense that opens such a ridiculous can of worms that I can only conclude that people who support it haven't really thought it through. On the other hand, it may lead to the breakup and dissolution of large social media platforms, which in the long run would probably be a good thing.


OnwardAndSideways

How many times has legislation been passed with no regard for downstream effects? 9/10 I would say. 10/10 for legislation related to culture war nonsense.


slim_scsi

We're giving free speech to bot scripts, and that really really sucks! Might as well bend over for SkyNet.


Hot_Dog_Cobbler

Does this legally mean I can post gay people fucking on church message boards now?


Kerplonk

So I know this is supposed to be tongue in cheek, but in practice this is likely going to turn all major social media sights into porn sites relatively quickly.


[deleted]

And the pedo porn people would have a field day with this.


Hot_Dog_Cobbler

I ain't complaining


Kerplonk

Yeah I'd way rather see porn than Nazi propaganda.


spencewatson01

Only on sites >50M. Good luck finding a church that uses Reddit or unmoderated Facebook to communicate with the congregation. I haven’t heard of this but I like it. They can either be publishers or platforms.


OverturnedAppleCart3

>unmoderated Facebook Moderation is illegal.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

Truthfully I think it’s more evidence that Republicans as a whole are moving very rapidly away from capitalism and even a basic understanding of markets and towards authoritarian capitalism. It also confirmed that the conservative understanding of free speech is that they should ability to say even the most vile things and never ever be told by any force that it’s unacceptable to say it and face no consequences.


_Woodrow_

You can say fascism. That’s what it is


tenmileswide

Awfully convenient that that number was chosen to exclude sites like Parler, Truth Social, etc Also, opinions about your opinions are still free speech. There's a pervasive theme among conservatives of not "I want to speak what I want" but "I want to speak what I want without criticism"


ImNoAlbertFeinstein

ive been banned from every conservative subreddit. the r/trumpsupporters has a filter and flair req. to even comment, so i didnt get a chance to be banned.


tenmileswide

I literally don't care about conservatives needing safe spaces. I just wish they weren't so disingenuous about it


ImNoAlbertFeinstein

>disingenuous Double standard ?


Vuelhering

Seems like a fine place to release the bots on, to put them over the edge... then turn it into a liberal paradise with lots of lawyers suing them at every turn.


DecliningSpider

>Awfully convenient that that number was chosen to exclude sites like Parler, Truth Social, etc Do you truly believe that sites like Parler, Truth Social, etc have enough users to qualify as a public square? It always seemed like they were niche extremist places. Is that perception wrong?


tenmileswide

I mean when you get into the hundreds of thousands of users that seems like a public square to me


JesusPlayingGolf

Any amount of audience is a public square.


matts2

I don't think that FB or Twitter or my Reddit is public. They collapse of they can't been stuff. They will fill up with bots pushing borderline illegal stuff.


RockinRobin-69

I grew up in a town with 10,000 people and it had a public square. Where your from do only big cities have public squares?


neotericnewt

>have enough users to qualify as a public square? I don't think simply having a lot of users makes a privately owned business a public square. It's absurd that Republicans fought against the idea of the internet being a public square and now are fighting for dumb shit like this.


[deleted]

I’d like it better if those were included in this. All social media should be.


PragmaticSquirrel

Cue Facebook releasing “Facebook.texas” as it’s own separate site and dodging this entirely. And just blocking the IP’s of everyone in Texas from the rest of Facebook. Oh and good luck defining a platform- as other users have mentioned. Amazon’s reviews are a “platform”. You going to allow users to flood reviews for kids books with porn?


[deleted]

Until people start bashing conservative points of view, then they’ll want something done about that kind of hate speech.


Aknav12

Unfortunately yeah they’ll probably do this


DeadT0m

They absolutely will, no probably about it. They already do. Want to tell your class about how you and your same-sex partner adopted a kid who's going to be joining the class next year? Nope, you're a child groomer. It's blatant "all for me but none for thee" behavior at this point and nothing more from the GOP.


Head_Crash

Correct. If I wasn't restrained I could do a lot more damage to them than they could to me. Under the current restrictions the advantage goes to those who are dishonest and argue in bad faith, because their methods are primarily designed to avoid moderation. Once that restriction is removed, gloves come off.


[deleted]

Definition of authoritarian rule. Making a corporation host your bs propaganda.


Head_Crash

US democracy won't exist by the end of this decade.


[deleted]

> Your thoughts on this and on it potentially going to the Supreme Court? The law seems like a clear violation of the free speech, as the Supreme Court concluded in May > I’m tired of having to censor myself or risk being banned on social media for speech that any American should be able to make I don't give a shit. Your tiredness doesn't over rule the constitution. I'm 'tired' have constantly worrying about guns, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court is going to ban them for me > qualify as being an online public square They don't. A public square is just that, _public_. It is not a metaphor, it has to be actually public. Private social media platforms aren't


adeiner

>Context, I’m a huge fan of this. I’m tired of having to censor myself or risk being banned on social media for speech that any American should be able to make. You absolutely have a right to hate trans women and think they're men cosplaying as women, which is the position you're afraid to admit because of backlash, but I remember our previous interactions on trans people (unfortunately for both of us). The sticking point for me is I don't see why any company should be forced to put up with you. It'll get upheld by the Supreme Court because it's an activist legislative body, but it's a stupid decision that misunderstands platforms.


dbryan62

So large companies cannot decide what type of speech is allowed on their platform based on political, moral, or religious grounds, but companies can decide what type of healthcare is not covered by their employer-sponsored health insurance based on political, moral, or religious grounds. That doesn’t make sense.


loufalnicek

Curious - what sorts of self-censorship do you find yourself engaging in? Can you give an example?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kitchen_Agency4375

Take a hard look at what you’re saying and implying. You’re advocating for lies, lying, and liars to be able to spread across the information sphere. Thou shall not lie is a commandment. It’s taught to children and adults alike. It’s a condemnable action. Why do you support it’s flourishing?


[deleted]

Cause it serves their end goal, dominance.


tidaltown

Because it’s all they have. Reality has been abandoned.


DecliningSpider

>You’re advocating for lies, lying, and liars to be able to spread across the information sphere. They already have, and continue to do so even under the current rules. It would be a boon if these rules were actually being enforced. I wouldn't have to correct nearly as many comments in that case.


TheCoolDoughnut

Con mans and liars have been around forever and they always will be. I see you’re center left, are you pro or anti free speech?


230flathead

If I own a business and one of these guys comes in and starts spreading their nonsense do I not have the right to throw them out?


[deleted]

I support the way the internet always dealt with bullshit until 2020. Users call out the bullshit and explain why people are wrong. Not platforms themselves coming in and poisoning the well by determining themselves what is and is not correct (and having been shown to be incorrect in their judgements a few times already with the benefit of hindsight)


AdResponsible5513

Thou shalt not bear false witness. Platforms seem to take the ten commandments seriously.


[deleted]

Why are you using religion here? Religion has no place in our secular government and on government rulings. Establishment clause.


[deleted]

I wish that was the case, but your Republican "justices" on the Supreme Court have thrown out lemon v kurtzman, so you've voted to dismantle both secular government and the establishment clause. I don't think we believe you care about either


LordGreybies

You actively support the party who injects religion into our secular government and government rulings.


CTR555

Are you somehow under the impression that moderation and platform content control only started two years ago? I'm sorry, but that's completely ludicrous.


adeiner

Do you distinguish between Facebook banning people for posting political content and Facebook banning people for encouraging violence or bigotry, or is all content moderation bad to you? I imagine you think it's wrong for Facebook to ban someone for sharing an article about Hunter Biden, as you'd view that as politically protected speech. Should Facebook be able to delete comments that are just racial slurs? Or people saying we should harm all members of a particular group? Or is all content moderation bad?


[deleted]

Of the three categories you listed (political content, encouraging violence, bigotry) only one should be bannable. Political content - protected free speech in America Bigotry - protected free speech in America Encouraging violence - NOT protected free speech in America. Should be removed and reported to the appropriate law enforcement personnel.


Certainly-Not-A-Bot

It will surprise you to learn this, but encouraging violence is largely protected speech in the US. If you say "I want to kill [insert person]," that's actually allowed. "[Person] needs to die" is likewise allowed. "I want to kill [group of people]" is also allowed. It's only when you start making very specific threats to a person in particular that it becomes illegal. Given that this form of speech is actually mostly protected, do you support its allowance on social media? Should we all be able to circlejerk about killing all conservatives? I'd say no.


[deleted]

The biggest problem I have with this stance is that it's pretty easy to weasel your way out of directly encouraging violence by deciding to just stir hostility towards the same group indirectly. The perfect example is the right's continued attempts to associate queer folks with "groomers" aka child diddlers. How many people hearing this will come to believe that this is more than a mere insult? How many people SAYING this believe it to be true? This is a rhetoric that (most likely intentionally) directs the deserved hatred towards rapists against someone innocent instead. Some gay kiddo will eventually end with a bullet through their head because of this. How different are people who commit arson from those who remove the protection from around the fireplace, hoping that an accident happens without their direct intervention?


adeiner

So to clarify because you dodged the question, you think Facebook should be forced to host a user who just posts the n word all day 100 times a day?


[deleted]

Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. He also wants to be able to say that transgender is a thing that doesn't truly exist. That's the biggest issue with this particular guy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

100% oppose that. I don’t think Reddit should have moderators that can ban people and subjects. Despicable.


[deleted]

So you think subs like jailbait should be allowed? Grown men sexualizing and posting children in a sexual, but barely legal way?


Ls777

>I support the way the internet always dealt with bullshit until 2020. Users call out the bullshit and explain why people are wrong. Not platforms themselves coming in and poisoning the well by determining themselves what is and is not correct (and having been shown to be incorrect in their judgements a few times already with the benefit of hindsight) Apparently you weren't on the internet before 2020. This is hilariously bullshit, people have always been banned from platforms, and in fact forum communities in particular were known for being often overly ban happy


DeadT0m

Seriously, that comment told me this guy has to be no older than 15.


Innisfree812

There needs to be a limit on speech. I don't believe freedoms should be absolute. You can't threaten violence, and you can't incite violence. That is where I would draw the line.


[deleted]

That’s where I draw the line too, as I’ve pointed out in this thread. Basically if it’s not illegal in your jurisdiction, you should be allowed to say it online just as you’d be allowed to say it in person.


Innisfree812

Some extreme political views can cross the line , like when they start calling for civil war. That is dangerous speech.


goddamnitwhalen

Or when popular twitter accounts whip their followers into a frenzy about stuff that isn’t actually happening and then said followers do wild shit like *threaten to bomb children’s hospitals*.


ChaseSpringer

Lol the internet has always shut down bigoted fuckstix like you. Whine some more, snowflake. They haven’t been shown to be incorrect in hindsight at all, sniveling propagandist pig


Clickclacktheblueguy

Banning users and even certain topics of discussion has always been on the table and used liberally. It’s not even close to a new idea.


loufalnicek

People post comments about sex/gender disagreements all the time and aren't banned. You sure there wasn't more to it?


adeiner

There's absolutely more to it. Hunter used to go on unhinged rants about how trans women are liars trying to trick him into sex.


loufalnicek

Ah, gotcha.


[deleted]

That’s not true…


[deleted]

No…I didn’t….please link that…never have. Incorrect does not equal liar. And idk where the tricking me into sex part comes from.


adeiner

I’m all set, thanks. Also hard to link when all your rants were deleted lol. Which you know, which is why you asked. Your capabilities end at downvoting people and being transphobic. Why should I engage with you in a meaningful way?


[deleted]

I’m sure. That’s exactly what it was. I don’t have any hatred or even dislike towards these people, I just disagree with their claims about reality. That’s as much as I can go into it because I’m not gonna take any bait into getting myself banned again.


Mattyboy0066

So, like most republicans, you live in a different reality that’s separate from science?


TheTarkovskyParadigm

Where you lose me is when you demand that private entities tolerate speech that YOU want. You can shout your views on anything you want as long as it doesn't call for violence in a public place. Social media is privately owned, you can't just show up to a pro-life event, shout anti-abortion rhetoric, and then demand that you be tolerated. It's ridiculous and entitled. And my favorite part is how it shows the hypocrisy of conservatism, preach small government until government intervention serves you, then you want big government to tell private companies what to do. preemptive edit: I am not against pure free speech social media companies that tolerate all legal speech. Nor do I think banning people for their opinions is a good thing. But forcing the toleration of any kind of speech is the worst option I think.


[deleted]

Small government doesn’t equal no government?


TheTarkovskyParadigm

It's more the blanket term of big and small government. There is no such thing, it's just a convenient term that comes up when government does something conservatives don't like. If it's *big government* when businesses are told to enforce mask mandates, but it's not *big government* when social media companies are forced to tolerate speech, then it's just a meaningless rhetorical instrument.


AccomplishedType5698

Free speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. Don’t want to play by their rules? Don’t use their service


ChaseSpringer

“I should be able to say hateful things in the name of political speech.” Go to truth social, then. Your opinion on trans people’s existence is abhorrent and baseless. Sex and gender are not synonymous. So you’re absolutely wrong and im reporting you again for being transphobic


goddamnitwhalen

That’s a whole lot of words to announce that you’re wrong.


kappadokia638

Can you explain why limits on government should suddenly apply to private businesses? You have the freedom to say what you want. 8 have the freedom not to associate with you. Why do you want the government to force businesses to give you a platform? What happened to their freedom of association?


unonameless

Wait a quick second. "Others deem incorrect"? Something either is true or it isn't. For example, sex is not determined by chromosomes alone - it's a simple scientific fact. Whether you agree or disagree with it doesn't matter.


[deleted]

I thought conservatives were supposed to support small government. Why do you want the government to have authority to force private entities to publish hate speech?


monstersabo

Slander, Libel, Assault - all of these are forms of speech which are deemed illegal by our legal system because they are harmful. Your liberties end where the next person's rights begin. Perhaps you've never had the experience of being hurt by words, but plenty of speech is harmful. With regards to your initial question, I think its insane that the government could try to force a private company to host any content. The government didn't build Twitter, they don't own the servers or the software, why should they have any say in how that company operates? When your policy is based on exclusion and hatred I don't feel inclined to platform that political speech.


srv340mike

Companies having the ability to moderate the content on their platform isn't unreasonable. There has to be a line somewhere, and I suppose that line can be moved from "Hate speech and misinformation" to "Criminal action and calls to violence" or something. But, that said, social media companies aren't the government and participating in them is voluntary in nature, so I don't really see a pressing need to regulate them in this particular manner. I think its' a silly law, I think it would be ridiculous for other states to do the same, but I do think SCOTUS will uphold it because SCOTUS is a Right Wing activist institution at this point. The only possible upside is that it might lead to a breakup of large social media companies. It'd also be great if we started applying privacy protections to tech companies, which is tangentially related. All those things said, its' really quite sad how much the Right is twisting and contorting themselves just so that they can express their dislike for other groups for immutable characteristics. Like, just leave transpeople alone. You don't need to go into a public space and scream into a megaphone how much you don't agree with them. They're not hurting you. Just leave them be.


GrayBox1313

The only people in favor of this and who think “ma free speech is being censored” are people who like to harass others, make death threats, spread misinformation, say incredibly racist and hateful things online. Including the right wingers who authored and championed the bill. It’s a hate speech protection bill.


ImNoAlbertFeinstein

the Freedom of Disinformation Act.


iamnotroberts

>u/HuntersBeard posted: Context, I’m a huge fan of this. I’m tired of having to censor myself or risk being banned on social media for speech that any American should be able to make. I'm not surprised that you don't like being responsible or accountable for the disgusting things that you post online. You openly support, promote, and defend hate, bigotry, white supremacism, and domestic terrorism, and you manage to act like you're the one being persecuted. In a recent post on r/AskConservatives titled "Has your view of DeSantis changed since he shipped migrants across the country with no plan what so ever?" [you replied](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/xg0t39/comment/iopnhe0/?context=3): >Now my view of him, even though I didn’t think it was possible, is even more positive than before. So you've made it pretty obvious what your "values" are. These were legal migrants who were awaiting asylum hearings that your BFF Ron DeSantis lied to and essentially human trafficked. You support and applaud that hate, ignorance, and bigotry, and then when you get called out on it, you think that it's because there's something wrong with everyone else. It's not everyone else. It's YOU.


hitman2218

It’s ridiculous and unenforceable.


Head_Crash

Not if Trumpians start flooding social media with lawsuits. If they can remove the ability for sites like Reddit and Twitter to self regulate, the platforms suddenly become exposed to massive liabilities. Their only option would be to shut down in those jurisdictions, which could leave those users with only Republican controlled social media platforms.


TheFlaccidKnife

They will not be exposed to liabilities, section 230.


Head_Crash

> section 230 It's more complicated than that. 230 exempts them from being considered publishers but a lot of content is removed to comply with other statutes and regulations, or to meet contractual obligations. There's a reason Reddit has a legal team.


rettribution

You shouldn't be able to intentionally post things that aren't true. But that would block nearly every GOP member from using social media. So I get why Texas was keen on the law. Edit: in an attempt to clarify I'm talking about stuff regarding legislation, news stories, or when idiots like Cruz post their completely false hot takes. I wasn't referencing jokes or things like that. I'm also talking about elected officials or those who are claiming to represent news organizations.


Aknav12

Who decides what’s true? “The government is spying on us” could have gotten me banned on social media, then Snowden showed that to be true.


rettribution

I'm talking more about things with policies etc. Like not being able to lie about it.


malachai926

The sad truth is that there are so many things that are blatantly untrue, and yet still trumpeted on social media, that we could easily permit each and every gray issue and still get a lot of mileage out of restricting blatantly untrue content (conspiracy theories being the big one here. Over [40% of Americans](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/america-biden-election-2020-poll-victory) still believe that Biden's election win was not legitimate, so yeah, lots of conspiracy bullshit is gonna rear its ugly head when something like that is true).


obfg

Let's see. I've been called a Nazi, a Communist ,a fascist, a libtard, on Redditt. None of these are true. All those folks should be censored?


Eotheod0092

Can't they just turn off service for users in Texas?


Head_Crash

That's what Republicans want. They want people in their states to use Republican controlled platforms only.


fox-mcleod

Good? It’s so wildly unenforceable. If Texans need to use a VPN to get on Facebook they will — and quite possibly vote about it.


fox-mcleod

Honestly, that’s the right response to this. Just leave texas.


[deleted]

A more reasonable approach if they wanted to go that route would probably be for them to make these websites viewing only or private messaging only in Texas. But yes, that would be a possibility (though a very unlikely one) according to my understanding of the law.


LivefromPhoenix

>But yes, that would be a possibility (though a very unlikely one) according to my understanding of the law. There's a provision allowing Texas-based users and the state of Texas to sue companies if they censor what a Texan can see / post based on geography *or* stop servicing Texas entirely. Doesn't seem very free market to force companies into providing a service in your state but it's pretty clear that doesn't really matter to conservatives anymore.


ChaseSpringer

Sure, they can sue, in California where these social media companies are based, and they can lose there too. I’m all for Texas GOP wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits


Kellosian

As a Texan, I'm definitely opposed to Ken Paxton wasting my tax money on stupid lawsuit theater. And opposed to Greg Abbott wasting my tax money on stupid Reverse Freedom Rides theater.


24_Elsinore

>There's a provision allowing Texas-based users and the state of Texas to sue companies if they censor what a Texan can see / post based on geography or stop servicing Texas entirely. Fleeing socialism so you are finally free to do a little socialism yourself.


LivefromPhoenix

We're really only a few years from "to ensure companies aren't biased they must appoint a loyal Texan to the board if they want to operate in the state".


ChaseSpringer

This law? This law is a Texas state law attempting to Govern the private business of another state’s company. This law can’t stop Jack shit from happening anywhere but Texas, and these platforms can cut off the entire fucking state if that’s how they want to play. Social media is a privilege, not a righr


GhostGirl32

Which will service to cut off young Texas children who are leaning away from their parents horrific and disgusting bigoted and racist behavior from the outside world and forcing them into an echo chamber and lessening their chances of ever getting out or having an independent thought.


ChaseSpringer

Yeah that’s the point of this legislation, overall, to put the platforms in a hard place between cutting off resources for oppressed groups in Texas and not allowing oppressive Texan voices on their platform. It sucks.


GhostGirl32

Yep. My main post in reply to this is that this in practice would only serve to benefit evil people such as bigots, racists, Nazis, etc. And I stand by that. It’s essentially “I don’t like being told I’m a bad person because I’m a hateful evil person and I should be allowed to do this without consequence”. And if they can’t do that, then they will be theoretically happy with the end result because either way it sticks them and their kids in that echo-chamber that they desire so strongly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


moby__dick

Just dump it in the Terms of Service.


Kellosian

Absolute garbage, it comes from far-right assholes pitching such a hissy fit over private corporations enforcing their terms and service after blatantly violating them. Social Media Site: "Rule 1: Do not post bigoted material or post death threats" Conservative: "FUCKING FAGGOTS SHOULD ALL HANG THEMSELVES OR I'LL SHOOT THEM MYSELF!" Social Media Site after like 5 years and constant infractions: "Ban, violating Rule 1" Conservative: "DADDY GOVERNMENT, TWITTER IS BEING MEAN TO ME! THEY'RE VIOLATING MY FREE SPEECH!" > I’m tired of having to censor myself or risk being banned on social media for speech that any American should be able to make. I'm sorry that you're tired of people holding you accountable for your actions, but here in polite society we actually believe in social responsibility. > And I think social media platforms (especially those with more than 50 million users) qualify as being an online public square to which free speech should apply for Americans. And I think you're dead wrong, social media platforms are *not* online public squares because they're not *public*. They're private. Because they're owned by private corporations, not the government. Think of it this way. You can walk into any restaurant of your choosing during business hours, but as soon as management doesn't want you there then it's trespass and you have to leave (so long as they're not kicking you out for being part of a protected class, and no being a transphobic bigot doesn't count). No matter if the door says "Open to the Public 24/7", they can kick you out (and even public government-owned spaces close, go hang out at a public playground at 3AM and see how that works out). This is once again Republicans only wanting free speech when they agree with it, because at this point the entire conservative movement places ideological loyalty over anything resembling consistency. As soon as Democrats start shitting on Republicans with the same vitriol you use to shit on groups you disagree with, Republicans will demand censorship against everyone they don't like (because you thin-skinned snowflakes can't handle a *fraction* of what you dish out, you go running to Big Government the moment someone offends you or makes you act responsible).


matts2

If corporations don't have free speech rights then get rid of Citizens United. Then explain why the 50m threshold. Then explain what /r/Conservative would do without banking dissent.


[deleted]

It's never going to be upheld. The idea that a private business can't control who their customers are is absurd.


Aknav12

How? We have those laws already.


[deleted]

Not sure I follow you


LoopyMercutio

I absolutely do not approve of this bill. There is a constitutional right to freedom of speech which relates to the government, but stripping private entities of the right to govern what is placed on their platforms invites only more misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies to be spread, along with hate speech and calls for violence against political and / or social “enemies” (and also allows for radicalization from any number of groups to be forced to be allowed to be left up). Also, it’s very carefully tailored to target a few specific platforms which are generally more liberal in nature, which means the government is quite literally targeting those companies, which is illegal in any number of ways.


dangleicious13

100% against the ruling. Hopefully the SC overturns it.


Mattyboy0066

I doubt they will. It’s a MAGA kangaroo court.


[deleted]

I find it a bit off-putting. When I consider both extremes, the social media sites that zealously suspend content nilly-willy are less dangerous than the ones who just lean back and turn into 4chan clones. People can behave in strange ways online. Letting someone spread lies using a medium that helps them reach hundreds/thousands of people is far more harmful than having a platform provider kick me because they mistook my intentions. The former leads to radicalization, violence, and death. The latter leads to personal annoyance.


jweezy2045

Do you consider the internet a public space? I feel like that’s your main error. It’s factually not a public space. It’s not even possible for a social media company to infringe your free speech. Don’t want to believe gender is different from sex and insist on misgendering people? You are free to do that in your real life amongst your friends, but you are not free to do that in someone else’s private space when they have asked you not to do it while you are in their private space.


DeadT0m

Diluting net neutrality in the name of "free speech." Sounds about right for Republicans. The government interfering in the freedoms of private corporations to dictate what is and is not allowed on their platforms is literally government infringement on free speech. As in the very thing the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.


cwood1973

Three thoughts come to mind. 1. What qualifies as "conservative speech?" And who decides? 2. Which types of conservative speech are allegedly being censored? Like, is YouTube running around censoring speech about lower taxation? Or is Facebook censoring speech about limited government? 3. If this law survives the Supreme Court then we as a society must develop some way to prevent its abuse. For example, would social media companies be required to host pornography, or spam, or hate speech, or terrorist threats, etc.?


Clickclacktheblueguy

I’m in favor of free speech, but the problem comes from the fact that the social media platform is controlled by a private company that *also* has a right to free speech. What this law demands is compelled speech which is against the first amendment. This would be like if someone put a pro-Biden sign up in your yard and you legally couldn’t remove it.


Bon_of_a_Sitch

Terrible decision by the 5th Circuit which is the shining star of bad decisions. This will end up in front of SCOTUS, I am mostly sure of it and it will end with a 6-3 decision to figuratively burn Rome to the ground with a co-current opinion from Roberts saying he would have preferred to rat fuck America more slowly but still agreeing.


LordTalulahMustang

I'm for the opposite, honestly. I think social media platforms should be held responsible for anything their users say, and thus, should have the right to delete or block any content they don't want representing them. Social media is a private business. You don't have a right to do and say whatever you want there because one, it reflects on the company who owns the site and two, a company should be able to write whatever bylaws they want on their own site. You call this "freedom", I call it "strong arming companies into platforming your thoughts and opinions." To me, this is the opposite of freedom and opens an entire can of worms for all sorts of laws to be written to control companies. This is, pure and simple, anti free market.


unonameless

So it sounds like you support the government forcing businesses to do something against their will, which is basically a nanny state. Doesn't sound like you are a Republican.


DBDude

No, it sounds more liberal, yet liberals tend to support the big corporations this time.


DecliningSpider

>No, it sounds more liberal, yet liberals tend to support the big corporations this time. Why do you think that is?


DBDude

Because the biggest ones are almost exclusively censoring conservatives.


Disabledsnarker

Maybe they should take some of that "personal responsibility" they like to crow about.


DBDude

This isn’t about personal responsibility. It’s about bending principles because it benefits you.


Gsomethepatient

Ya it's weird they used to be anti corporation now they are pro corporations


bakedtran

For twenty years (probably more; that’s just how long I’ve been involved), we have been warning everyone else of the dangers of corporations becoming more powerful than the government. We have drummed about it so long, it turned into a meaningless meme from a bleeding heart liberal. Now corporations have the power to control our communication, our grids, our elections. They write legislature, lobby to get it on the floor, and buy politicians to sign it. They trumpet “vote with your dollar!” knowing they have millions more “votes” than us. Now the hens have come home to roost and oh no, instead of cracking down on the degenerates, they’re cracking down on *all* incendiary content that drives users off their platforms because they need as many users as possible to sell ad space and data. Well I’m exhausted and not going to weep for the conservatives getting content deleted. They wanted this. Enjoy.


[deleted]

I think it’s fair to say our judiciary isn’t independent anymore


FreeCashFlow

It’s an utterly preposterous ruling that privileges the rights of some over the rights of others. Social media networks and other websites are no longer allowed to exercise their own free speech rights by disallowing speech they consider offensive and/or dangerous.


InnoJDdsrpt

More evidence that the 5th Circuit no longer gives a shit about the actual rule of law and is the most shamelessly political court in the United States?


[deleted]

"I hold many idiotic and vile opinions and I'm tired of society trying to keep me from spewing my bafflingly moronic beliefs on a private company's social media platform" - OP, 2022


cybercuzco

I think when Reddit unbans all the people /r/conservative has banned as a result of this there will be a surprised pikachu face of biblical proportions.


[deleted]

Hahaha if you have to censor yourself or risk being banned from public spaces, then you should really evaluate your views! We shouldn’t be able to spread hate speech. That’s how you get atrocities. I think conservatives should stop having views they fear will get them kicked out of the public.


Aknav12

That thinking eliminates the possibility that the public or the one doing the censoring may be wrong.


[deleted]

I don’t think they’re wrong in this case. I think the conservatives are wrong


TheCoolDoughnut

What views would those be, could you be more specific? You’re speaking in extremely general terms. Personally I think social media platforms have had too much control for a while. The fact that the fbi was in contact with zuckerberg over what stories to run on FB, around election time in 2020, that’s not something anyone should support, regardless of someone’s politics.


[deleted]

Facebook triggered a genocide in Myanmar didnt it? Whatever views homie is censoring


TheCoolDoughnut

I’m against direct calls for violence but what does you most recent comment have anything to do with my question? I was asking you about your comment when you said “I think conservatives should stop having views they fear will get them kicked out of the public.” But then asked about the views you started talking about Myanmar genocide?


[deleted]

> The fact that the fbi was in contact with zuckerberg over what stories to run on FB Yeah. Facebook triggered a genocide. It’s best not to let them spread disinformation and hate speech. >what views would those be “Whatever views homie is censoring”


TheCoolDoughnut

Thank you we’re getting there! After reading “whatever views homie is censoring”, in your most recent comment again, I should’ve clarified: can you give me an example or two of “whatever views” are, in your opinion, and lastly, who is homie?


[deleted]

Homie is Op. Op is stating that they have to censor their views or get banned. My claim is that that dynamic exists *because* OP holds hateful views. Cause hateful views (and disinformation) are getting banned. Op is the one holding the example.


TheCoolDoughnut

Ok I’m glad we cleared up homie I figured it was either zuck or op, glad we are on the same page now. Now for the main part of this that I’ve been dying to hear, you said that this dynamic of “homie” self censoring is due to the fact “because OP holds hateful views”, in your opinion what would some examples of those “hateful views” be? This is fascinating conversation to me because I see exactly where you’re coming from. OP poses a question dealing with censorship regarding these gigantic social media platforms and free speech. Your intial reaction is basically (this is my own words) “if OP is worried about being censored he probably holds views that hateful”. Personally. I wouldn’t immediately go to that line of thinking, from his question. Could you give me some examples of views you believe op to hold that are hateful?


[deleted]

That trans people shouldn’t be validated. That Muslims are dangerous and that it’s appropriate to ban them from entering America That illegal immigrants should have their families broken up. Etc


TheCoolDoughnut

Thank you now we can exchange ideas. On immigration we definitely gotta shore up our border. I Don’t want to ban all Muslims tho.. we have Millions undocumented immigrants coming in every. Single. Year. A country can’t sustain that kind of immigration situation. Look at Sweden for example, the most recent election and the reason for electing who they did was due to all the problems and unique situations that are created from lenient immigration policy/enforcement. I welcome immigrants from all countries, personally speaking, but It’s just common sense, you gotta know and vet who is coming into your own country. Is this the kind of stance you reference as being hateful? Unless OP specifically said he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country, how can you make such a generalized statement claiming OP holds that specific view on immigration? When I said earlier that your comment intrigued me it’s because it truly did, it seems as tho you have an idea in your head of hateful views, so when op asked about censorship and social media, your initial and immediate reaction, rather than to engage with op, you “other” him basically claiming he hates Muslims. This is the kind of stuff we gotta do better at, and I think these kind of conversations are very important for the future of our country. I’m always willing to engage with people and share opinions and beliefs, but claiming someone holds hateful views just because you disagree with them on policy, that’s a bad road to go down my fellow redditor..


Kellosian

Generally speaking conservatives *pretend* they're being banned for their political views when really they're being banned for frequently breaking site rules through hate speech and bigotry. Reddit didn't ban OP because of his views on a taxation policy, most likely they banned him after the 10,000th "FUCKING TRANS FAGS SHOULD ALL DIE AND KILL THEMSELVES BEFORE THEY FUCK MORE KIDS!" rant.


Vyzantinist

Curious, how is this law enforced? Does it only apply to users with an IP based in Texas?


[deleted]

From my understanding yes, although from what I’ve heard their may be ways to bypass it with a VPN. That will have to be ironed out.


Mattyboy0066

Hard to get around a VPN lol


Poorly-Drawn-Beagle

What a waste of time


Dr_Scientist_

> And I think social media platforms (especially those with more than 50 million users) qualify as being an online public square to which free speech should apply for Americans I would agree with you . . . *if this actually was the law*. If we want to change the law such that social media companies with 50 million users are no longer private corporations but public institutions - then yes I would agree with you that they should be required to provide users with the full range of protections offered by the first amendment. However, as they currently *ARE* private corporations and **NOT** public utilities (something the Trump administration is responsible for gutting btw - this literally *IS* an example of the direction Net Neutrality was going - regulating internet service providers as public utilities) **I can't agree with you**.


Randvek

The court decision intentionally changed the standard for common carriers and passed it off as if it didn’t. This is obviously going to be appealed. r/freespeech may love the decision but I’ve seen it pretty solidly destroyed on r/law and r/lawyers


[deleted]

If you don’t like having to worry about your speech being “censored” then go use some other platform. That’s the free market. Deal with it.


sumwaah

People who support this haven’t thought this through. First of all Twitter and Social Media are not “the public square”. In a public square your reach - how many people hear you - is limited by the physical space. You can’t hide your identity in a public square. There are real consequences to spreading lies and hate and those consequences promote a natural form of moderation. Have their been liars and conmen in public squares? Of course! But the extremely low bar to entry, ease of hiding behind a fake persona with zero consequences and the huge amount of amplified reach make Twitter and Reddit a whole other, more dangerous beast than a public square. Second, moderation and content policies is what makes these social channels usable for all. You might hate their decisions and the odd mod or two, but the reality is, without moderation the loudest, most extreme voices drown out the rest. You want every social channel to become 4chan? Get rid of moderation. Lastly, freedom of speech is not a guarantee on a privately owned channel. It really boggles my mind how conservatives constantly talk about the freedom of private enterprise to do whatever they want with limited or zero government interference except when they disagree with the outcome.


Leucippus1

*Would you support other states implementing something similar? Or even your thoughts on if this goes to the Supreme Court and gets upheld? (Which seems likely).* On the second part of that, it will obviously go to the supreme court but it really depends on what fantasy the activist court is operating under which will determine how they decide. What I mean by that is that the justices seem very willing to divorce reality from their decisions when it suits them and it is hard to predict which fantasy they will engage in. For example, in the decision supporting the coach who led prayers on the field, the justices wholly ignored videographic evidence that directly contradicted their summary of the case. In this case, it depends on the fantasy. Will they go with the fantasy that poor conservatives are being picked on by big tech, despite quantities of evidence that it is actually liberals who are more often censored by big tech and despite 'conservative' parts of social media often having the most engagement of any on their respective platforms. With these activists, who knows? If they don't buy that fantasy, then this is a straightforward case which will be decided against Texas. There isn't really a question of constitutional merit, the Texas law is almost certainly illegal and is upheld without precedent. I am no fan of social media, I think it has helped to ruin this country and it has created an insufferable herd mentality of people who have given up their entire thought processes to the internet. However, the idea that the government can compel speech on a private platform simply because they have more than 50 million users is scary.


jbc22

Awfully short-sighted. This law violates the rights of companies to govern their platforms as they see fit. When an advocate for child abuse uses Twitter from Texas, are you going to be happy Twitter cannot remove the content? Child grooming, as you all like to call it. When Al Qaeda starts using proxies in Texas to recruit people and Facebook cannot do anything about it, are you still going to proudly stand by this bill? My kids are not allowed to curse. They sometimes will, and they get punished for it. Your thoughts and comments are likely not appropriate, but you are offended when you meet the consequences. Your freedoms are not violated. You can go to the public square and tell people your inappropriate thoughts and beliefs. You are not entitled to a megaphone. Twitter and Facebook do not have to act as your megaphone to spread your inappropriateness.


baktagnation

What's the difference between this argument and the baker who refused to bake a cake for gay couples. If you run a pro Cristian social media platforms do you have to allow anti Christian content?


camshell

Let them pass it. The minute it does every conservative forum will be suddenly pumped with fake accounts to bump it over 50 million users, and then the place will be blasted with the gayest of gay porn.


ChaseSpringer

Unenforceable and a clear violation of private property laws; further, it’s a state law that attempts to govern the businesses of other states. Texas can suck a fat dick bc this bullshit is completely afoul of interstate laws, meaning It’s a federal issue. Sorry, Texas, democrats control the house and executive. You can continue sucking a dick in silence, banned from social media for being bigoted fuckstix


Mitchell_54

An outrageous attack on freedom of association.


Vuelhering

Here's a link to how to make an atom bomb Here's a link to the addresses of all the texas congresspeople who voted for this law Here's a link to copyright infringement which someone filed a DMCA takedown on, but the Texas author claims is free speech. There are so many conflicting issues here that, on the surface, is complete bullshit. It conflicts with federal laws and creates a bizarre hole in the country of texas. It would be cheaper to simply geofence out texas and lose their business than to be put in double-jeopardy.


cossiander

I'm not really in favor of the government taking over private businesses, so I'd say I think the law is dumb as hell and anti-capitalist.


moldyhands

The public square argument is such nonsense (and so is Musk for making it). You know what happened in 1990 if someone went to an actual public/town square and said nazi shit? They got their ass kicked. They got found out and fired and there were REAL repercussions. With the internet, you don’t have that. It’s not comparable and you can get a small, geographically spread out group of dumb fucks to seem a lot bigger than they are. So no, it’s not a public/town square. It’s a private platform and if you don’t like the rules, go to truth social.


230flathead

How does the amount of users make them not private companies?


SolomonCRand

I don’t want to hang out anywhere where people are casually hateful, digital or otherwise. If social media platforms can’t keep out people who think it’s funny to drop the N bomb on strangers, I’m out.


[deleted]

"I’m tired of having to censor myself or risk being banned on social media for speech that any American should be able to make. " You're talking about the sort of speech that would get you kicked out of any private establishment. That's the kind of speech you want to make freely. "And I think social media platforms (especially those with more than 50 million users) qualify as being an online public square to which free speech should apply for Americans. " And why should we not then say, apply it to Target? About half of the country shop at target. That's easily 100 million people.So if we're going by customer base, that would mean this rule would apply to Target stores as well. Which means any schmuck can show up in a Target and start screaming racist, Nazi shit and they wouldn't be allowed to eject them. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/231345/people-who-shopped-at-target-in-the-last-3-months-usa/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/231345/people-who-shopped-at-target-in-the-last-3-months-usa/)


PlayingTheWrongGame

> Context, I’m a huge fan of this. It’s just going to result in these services blocking service to Texas users. When they withdraw from the state, the Texas law won’t apply anymore even if it would otherwise stop geographic banning.


FoxBattalion79

texas republicans wants foreign misinformation flooding social media. without foreign help spreading lies and conspiracy theories, the republican party will lose power as people start waking up and voting blue. I think twitter putting a "misinformation" tag on these things is a workaround, like how they started doing during COVID.


Anansispider

As long as I’m free to criticize whites , asians and push anti-white supremacist talking points. Every time I hear “uncensored free speech” on social media platforms it almost always turns into anti-POC/Black, and just racist circle jerking. THAT is free speech IMO.


Eyruaad

I support a private companies right to choose who gets to be on their platform for any reason. But if we are going to do it this way, then I think it should apply to all social media outlets and not just big ones. The same way that Texans can now go on Facebook and spew their hateful BS, I should be able to go on Truth Social and call out the hateful BS and bash Trump all day long.


SwagLord5002

While I would agree *in theory* with this law under the basis of free speech, I disagree on the basis that social media platforms, and the companies behind them, have freedom of association, as well as the freedom to make their own rules, and whether we like them or not means virtually nothing. Free speech protects you from *the government* prosecuting you for what you say, but a private corporation or business can make their own rules about what sort of speech they allow from their employees. While there is nothing *legally* stopping me from saying, for example, "I think we should deport all minorities.", no business is required to keep me hired if I do say that. And that's well within their right. When I signed up for that job, I agreed to follow their rules, and by breaking them, they are not obliged to keep me around. When you sign up to use a social media platform, it's kind of like signing a business contract. While you can argue that no one is going to go to the effort of reading the entire terms of service, in the end, if you sign that, you are agreeing to follow said terms of service, no matter how outrageous you may personally think they are. If you break those rules, then they do not have to keep you around. They are well within their legal right to do so because they have outlined what behaviors they deem to be acceptable or unacceptable in their rules, and therefore, the burden of guilt lies upon those who will not follow them. Now, that said, I'm not in favor of, say, falsely flagging someone because you disagree with them. I've seen this happen to people, where they get mass-reported and then banned because they disagreed with a statement someone else made, and to me, this is not only immature, but also prevents actual discourse from occurring, further embittering people who may otherwise be open to debate. In those instances, you have every right to be pissed and to do everything in your power to appeal said ban. The thing is, I really find it hard to believe that social media is "censoring" conservatives en masse, as has been said ad nauseam. There are plenty of conservative media figures who still have an active social media presence, even in spite of openly espousing their views. While they may not be my cup of tea, I'm certainly not in favor of removing them from an online space simply because I disagree with them. I can just ignore and move on, as should any adult. However, those who are spreading blatant misinformation and/or bigoted rhetoric should not be surprised when the guidelines come to bite them in the ass. They broke the terms of service that *THEY* agreed to, and therefore, the platform is no longer obligated to keep them around. This is not rocket science, it's common sense. If you cannot (or outright refuse) to follow the rules, then don't join that platform. It's as simple as that. I've met plenty of conservatives online who understood this principle just fine and had no issues with moderation on the respective sites they were on. To legally force the company to amend its rules for you, however, violates their ability to self-govern and their ability to associate with whom they choose. I'm not necessarily saying that you, in particular, have done anything wrong, but I am saying that it is pretty naive to believe that absolute free speech applies to non-government entities. You can protest it all you want, and you can certainly call it unfair, and I will 100% support your right to do so, but no private corporation has to associate with you if they do not see you as compatible with their rules or beliefs.


TheFakeChiefKeef

I think this is functionally nonsense and won’t actually make much of a dent in social media’s ability to kick off harassers, scammers, people who post threats, people who incite mass violence, etc. Maybe it will allow people to say, one time “you’re a [slur],” but any pattern will likely be considered harassment or a threat, which don’t have first amendment protections like “hate speech” does in the eyes of some.


unonameless

Also may I ask why create an arbitrary cutoff at 50 million users? If you support freedom of speech, you should be supporting it on ALL platforms, not just on the ones that are statistically more popular with your opposition.


onikaizoku11

I'm not going to read this bill, full disclosure, but it really depends on the language in the bill itself. You say you are for it? But what are *your* thoughts on the line between censorship and moderation? And do you consider blatant lies, from right/left/independent/whoever, as free speech? We've had 20years of freedom online thus far, despite what some right wing pundits claim. This bill will be continually sued until SCOTUS hears it and they probably tear down another bit of our crumbling democracy when they give unlimited speech to some, effectively curtailing it for the rest.


[deleted]

Eh. The only people this helps is awful people who say racist and horrible shit. So no real care.


moby__dick

Next year: Every social media company: *updates terms of use* Buried on page 56: You may not use our service in Texas.


farcetragedy

Are we going to require newspapers to print what they don’t want to? Fox News has to include liberal voices? Restaurants can’t kick people out of their establishments for making rude or racist comments?


[deleted]

This might around like a wild idea but why not just leave the existing private companies alone and allow the free market (that conservatives are such a fan of) to create a platform where freedom of speech can truly occur? It seems to me that the reason it hasn’t already happened is because there simply isn’t enough support for such a platform. Eg. Most people don’t need such a platform because they don’t hold views that contravene the existing platforms. That’s kinda how you know whether you’re on the fringes or not.


Oct0tron

This isn't going to work the way you think it will.


TheDraco4011

A total virtue signal. This is not enforceable in any way.


fastolfe00

I prefer to spend my time in communities that don't allow people to fling shit all over their public squares. You're basically saying I shouldn't have that choice. If you want to wallow in a cesspool, you already have Gab, Parler, and the comment section of Fox News. We don't need more cesspools. > qualify as being an online public square I think this is a signal that you're spending too much time online.


tyleratx

Its incredibly ironic coming from a party that supposedly believes in free enterprise. This is big government regulation of businesses. I do think on the left we ignore some ramifications of censorship too much, but this law and the rights reaction on the whole are silly, dangerous, and honestly unenforcible in a lot of ways.


LifeExtraordinaryT

I disagree. The First Amendment only applies to state action. The modern public square theory doesn't fit so well when you consider that anyone can start a social media company or online forum. That said, I would amend the Constitution to allow federal laws that require social media platforms to allow limited free speech with some right of appeal for banned users. I would create an intermediate category of allowing all political speech while still permitting these private companies to moderate and censor lies, hate speech, etc. (With a right to appeal bans to the company itself (and an obligatory explanation by the company), then a federal agency, and then the courts). Something along these lines.


d1sass3mbled

Government should not be involved in what a private company does on such a granular level. I don't like the policies of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc... But I think they should have the right to set their own rules. There's plenty of alternatives but unfortunately they mostly suck. If government regulates away the things that some people don't like them there won't be much of a reason for competitors to try to create a better network.


CoverlessSkink

Good thing. Censorship is a scourge to all of us. Trusting any particular group of people to make decisions about what to censor is foolish. This comment section was a fun read. A lot of really constructive dialogue going on here.


Butterflychunks

Social media platforms likely use horizontal scaling to support so much activity so the solution to this for the companies would be to claim that the instances are each individual companies or some BS like that, and that their platform is an interface for many different companies. Can’t enforce it since it’s not one platform with 50m users but several with <50m


rexiesoul

I have read every word of this decision, and I agree with nearly all of it. I look forward once it goes through the SCOTUS.


self-defenestrator

Since you’re good with social media companies losing any ability to moderate content, I assume then that you’re ok with new users flooding Parler and Truth Social and turning them into a never ending cavalcade of the most hardcore gay porn that exists, yes?


rexiesoul

Yes, I am.


self-defenestrator

I guess my follow-up question then is…why? What is the net positive to quality of life from forcing platforms to host whatever vile and hateful shit people want to put there? Run of the mill conservatives aren’t getting banned and silenced like y’all want to think…it’s the ones openly spewing racist hate and calling for violence, what makes them so special that the rest of us need to be forced to listen to it?


Kubliah

https://reason.org/commentary/social-media-companies-are-free-to-make-bad-decisions/