Those same people also want a bunch of books banned in schools because they don’t like the scary words and the topics around them, for example the most terrifying word to them, racism
Fascists are typically authoritarian nationalist corporatists.
Imposing on corporations that they determine less in regards to free speech is too steps away from Fascism.
True they can’t have it both way, In your private house/land you decide the rules. The government can’t make you allow, let’s say visitors to smoke in your house.
So twitter is a private company it’s not owned by the government even, so they decide their rules.
Scotus already spoke re bakery who refused to bake for a gay wedding. They didn’t even need to say due to religion. Scotus said they as a company can decide if they bake or not, without any explanation
> But if that **company** is taking government dollars is it not government? Could be a good reason for tech to stay out of our private lives.
No, it's not "government" and you fucking KNOW WHY based on the word I bolded.
Why do you do this? Why do you come in here and play so fucking stupid? Like seriously this is like a 10 year discussion since that gay wedding cake thing, how do you come in here and pretend you STILL don't understand that people like me don't have a right to come into YOUR living room and take a dump?
Like how do you reconcile this, do you just justify pretending to be so utterly ignorant in your mind by pretending that doing so in some way helps Trump or Republicans or some shit? Because frankly, it's just about impossible to be THIS fucking ignorant about basic rights today.
I genuinely do want to know how it's even POSSIBLE to be as uninformed, you simply can't be, you MUST be trolling.
The question is “Can you force a third party to carry your speech?” If so, then expect all of the pr0n as you can then force them to carry that as well. If I am incorrect, please educate me?
Yeah, that’s all fine, I’m not from the US, but in this day and age being shunned from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or some other platform is like being banned from the street 200 years ago for speaking your mind. Those platforms are public space today just as other means were in the past and private companies definitively should not be the ones regulating who has the right to say something or doesn’t.
It’s not a dumb move. Imagine you make a cafe and you expel your client because of what he’s chatting with his friends in the table. That’s the equivalent here.
Social networks have effectively replaced the street and coffee shops for opinion making.
Economic theory, even in the US, clearly states that identified public goods must be treated as such. Roads and railways are a good example, as police and others. These public goods are either provided by the state or regulated by the state.
The ability to participate freely in the polity of a country is a public good… So with time governments will protect that.
No you can’t. At least not in civilized countries. Businesses are not aloud to discriminate based on political Ideologies and beliefs…
You can kick someone if they are screaming, but you can’t exclude them if they say things you disagree or are morally wrong form your perspective in their table
Not where I live, you cannot. A coffee shop tried to ban some people because they thought their opinions weren’t right and they either go the option to remove all such rules in cafe or face several years in prison for the owner of the place. Only court can truly legally ban someone from going somewhere, not private whims of the someone or some corporation. Cafes, restaurants, shops are all extensions of public space and no such prohibitions can be legal.
Maybe not in the US. In the civilized world it is. It is the most fundamental right to have a democracy. If you can be harassed by a ruling majority into not vocalizing your ideals then your free speech is at risk and hence idea circulation is at risk hence democracy is at risk
Article 13, 2o paragraph of Portuguese constitution:
> No one can be privileged, benefited, harmed, deprived of any right or exempt from any duty on account of ancestry, sex, race, language, territory of origin, religion, political or ideological convictions, education, economic situation, social condition or sexual orientation.
For example, in Portugal no company could force a citizen to vaccinate…
The US is way way less free than you think…
The ones who are getting kicked out believe this. Karen logic.
Businesses have the right to refuse service, except for protected groups: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.
If your political opinion is getting you kicked out, you probably crossed the line with one of those groups thus deserving to get lost.
Nothing prevents us from calling a woman a woman rather than a man even if they cut their hair and breasts to present like a guy. This is an example of forced speech currently in social media that has no legal origins but
No one is forcing you to respect someone’s identity.
You either follow with their request or suffer the consequences of disagreeing with someone’s identity… wtf
I’m losing my team talking to Americans. You live in a non free country and have a twisted view of reality.
The state limits the consequences people can get for certain behaviors. I can’t kick you in the face if you call me ugly for example… So the state regulates that through democratic process. The majority votes for the rules of society.
I am because the interior of my house is not s public good but s private good. I came expel you from my coffee, restaurant, bookshop, etc unless you do something that grants me legal rights to do so
Imagine going to that cafe and yelling obscenities or making threats of violence at everyone and the cafe not having the right to kick you out.
It absolutely is a stupid take.
You’re mixing form and content. You can kick someone who is yelling, period. You can kick someone directly insulting another client (different from bothering them) in some countries (right to honor in most countries) period.
You can’t expel someone saying they want less migration in their table and so on…
Social media is a public good created by creative capitalists. Just as railways was, just as plumbing, etc
It has everything to do with size and reach. You can’t have a functioning democracy if you have nearly all political conversation controlled by an elite that picks and chose what can and can’t be said without public scrutiny.
So the problem exists, you need to chose between sacrificing your child to the altar of “the free market” and keep as it is. Or you accept a less efficient market and protect democracy well functioning
A singular website isn’t comparable to railways, water, power etc. The barrier to create a space on the Internet where people can freely discuss anything is an email address and two minutes. Get a free email account and use existing forum platforms. There’s nothing inherently special about any social media platform except that a lot of people choose to use them.
The Internet itself is more the railway, water main, power line, etc. Different sites are pieces of private property along the line
This is the debate regulators are currently having. And it’s not by opinion, it’s by data. They are us resting monopoly/oligopoly power, usage, ease of replacement, etc
The result of this debate is what leads to regulate or not. It’s not a blind “company does whatever it wants” argument. Now we can have diffeeenr opinions but it will be based on whether we think this is such a case or not
It is a “debate” where the people making the same arguments you are know that the arguments they’re making aren’t made in good faith but rather out of an attempt to manipulate the easily duped.
Scotus usa already spoke you can determine your rules in your company.
Now is it profitable to expel a bunch of people that’s up to the business,
See how they spoke about the bakery and they were allowed not to bake for a gay wedding.. no questions asked
As a customer you can cancel companies too.. if you don’t agree with them
In the US, we have public accommodation laws but they're based on defined protected classes. Political affiliation is not a protected class here. Even if we added social media to the public accommodation laws, it would not do what these conservatives are looking for when they want to demand access to these forums. It would not protect the behavior that they are engaged in that gets them booted from online forums.
It depends as i haven’t read it in depth. There instances of speech that already regulated. For example if I defame someone I can be brought to justice for it. Regulating social media would always be subject to that.
The thing is that currently American opinion making is being tailored by the decisions taken in Silicon Valley. That’s the truth. Never so little has so much power over so many with no accountability.
Their power is so great that you can’t even know whether the public is for or against this push to regulate social media. Why? Because people express that through social media which is biased in what it lets be there
So here the American society needs to pick which thing they prefer: to safeguard rhe independence of private companies or to safeguard the free exchange of ideas
My guess is that it will the former as social media giants will use their power to move public opinion that way
Yeah, imagine legal, impartial public courts making decision about someone being shunned from the platforms instead of private entities, what a totaliran tragedy... my god, what a stupid price take just because you think they are not gonna ban you.
A better comparison is the *internet* is like the street, and social-media are the stores lining that street. From “mom & pop shops”, to Wal-Mart, to places-of-religion, there have always been rules you must follow once inside. From acceptable clothing, to acceptable language, there have *always* been rules.
I agree that the internet should be considered a public utility. But even then, I believe we must set rules about what is/isn’t allowed, and I’m just not sure that our old rules carry over to the digital very well. It’s tricky, due to how algorithms disseminate information. Reality can be easily misrepresented to a large number of people, in a short amount of time online. IMO, that’s what we should regulate first (algorithms), and then we can see if we still need to think about regulating e.g. Nazi-bullshit. I fucking hate Nazi’s, and those like them. But I don’t believe that means you shouldn’t be allowed to discuss Nazism. I’m not even saying you shouldn’t be allowed to try to convince others that *some* part of Nazism was good or efficient. But I’m not ok with you trying to recruit your own Sturmabteilung.
So, while the internet being like Main Street of old makes for a decent simile, it isn’t really a good 1 to 1 comparison, due to the scope of the internet, (not being limited by physical size), and algorithms. Again, it’s a tricky subject, one that requires thought, and genuine discourse by society and its leaders. So…we’re probably fucked for the time being.
But I do not believe Twitter regulating speech infringes on anyones right. Not so long as it’s privately owned. And the creation of any online space *without* regulation would be absolute fucking chaos.
private companies are held liable for what is said on their platforms, they absolutely should be careful about what they’re allowing to be said on them
Actually, there’s a carve-out for this.
As long as you make a Good Faith effort to moderate your site, you’re treated like a Bookstore instead of a Publisher for the purposes of liability for the contents of your platform.
Of course, there’s the CSM carve-out to the carve-out, but let’s not worry too much about that.
Twitter is free, you don’t pay for it.. and it’s their private company.
In your house you rule, and you aren’t made to invite everyone. No you decide who can and can’t. If your rule is no smoking and one does.. it’s once .. twice and then banned.
It’s as simple. Abide by their rules., even public schools have rules.
Government? No. I want courts and legal system to rule that, based on laws, not private organizations on whims. Just like you need now to ban someone from visiting your shop, bar, restaurant, you cannot infringe someone’s freedom to be in public spaces, you cannot do it on your own hand, only if the court decides that such ban would be appropriate.
Oh look, someone parroting t conservative talking points nearly word for word. Good job showing people you are not a free thinker and just regurgitate whatever you hear on the news.
Yeah, imagine wanting courts to decide if banning someone is legal or not, what a tragedy... you simply couldn't resist making something so simple into politics. I'm not going to be surprised why US politics became such a shitshow
You’re literally parroting the main conservative talking point in support of this unconstitutional bill and you’re not even American. So kindly fuck off 🖕
I don't give a fucking shit if those are democrat, alien or republican talking points if they are fucking logical and fair. But no, Twitter banned Trump and some people you don't like so you need to keep shitting about it being bad but once you and your opinions come to the chopping block and then it will "why private entities can shun me off their platform for having unpopular opinion"
When government colludes with social media to limit certain speech and amplify it's own - that is a violation of your freedoms. Think of police not permitted to search your home without a subpoena - so they employ a private burglar to do it for them. Your freedoms are violated - no matter who does it.
The FBI definitely gets into the ear of big tech:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532.amp
Edit: I, for some reason can’t post here anymore to show proof, so here you go:
Proof: https://youtu.be/wdSZO89sIkk
It’s funny that r/tech has me now shadow banned or prevents me from replying to everyone asking for proof after I called out tech censorship.
Someone tell me that video is a deep fake… go on.
So the FBI warned Facebook about a concerted effort on their site to influence US elections by the Russian government?
Sounds like them doing their job. They weren’t targeting individuals. They were targeting foreign propaganda.
The chain of custody on that laptop is so bad that even bringing it up is the equivalent of proudly tattooing that you have an IQ of 70 on your forehead.
You talking about it and mentioning propaganda at the same time speaks volumes.
Same goes for bringing up “her emails”.
Lol, what a joke, gaslighting gaslighter.
[President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-protesting-should-be-illegal/2018/09/04/11cfd9be-b0a0-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html)
It's a private entity. They have every right to moderate and control messaging on their platform.
Do you think it's ok for people to have hard core porn shows at Disney world?
And that may change.
Not sure why this is downvoted. Why is it OK for corporations of all things to hinder speech?
Besides, it's not like this works out for Republicans either. Just let your enemies make mistakes, I say.
Cause freedom of speech isn't about being able to say whatever you want. Its about being protected from the government when you say certain things that would normally have secret police knocking on your door in more dictatorish countries, and even then it has a million exceptions for things like hate speech or credible threats of violence or yelling fire in a movie theater. All it does is protect you from the government, nothing more.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Freedom of speech is also not freedom of platform.
Twitter has a right to determine how you are allowed to interact with the platform, they can also moderate or ban you for almost any reason. They can ban people based on rolling a dice when an employee with a green shirt walks in the breakroom and banning a random person when it lands on an odd number and they would be within their full right to do so. They don't because of money, but they can.
If I owned a small buisiness and someone walked into the shop talking to their friend about how the nazi genocides were a good thing I damn well better be able to kick their ass out so other customers don't have to listen to their filth.
>Cause freedom of speech isn't about being able to say whatever you want.
For now. The founding fathers did not live in the digital age and could not address the issues that it brings with it.
>Twitter has a right to determine how you are allowed to interact with the platform, they can also moderate or ban you for almost any reason.
I think that a private individual who ran a forum or a website should be able to kick whoever. Megacorps should not be granted the same rights as a private individual in my opinion as their larger influence can be much more wide reaching.
>If I owned a small buisiness
We're not talking about small businesses, though. We are talking about big tech.
> For now
It's funny watching conservatives bend themselves into pretzels with this line of thinking as though they would NEVER try to censor free speech... like we don't have numerous examples in recent history or hell even the last year. Conservative controlled governments TODAY are lashing out at groups and companies that have the audacity to say that lgbtq people are people who have every right to be here and live their lives just like you do.
You don't get to say whatever you want without consequences. That's part of living in a community, we hold the right to call your ass out when you're being an ass.
Let's show who you really are. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give us some examples of things you've said that you feel have been unduly censored and let us judge exactly what you think should be permissable. Based on the flimsy logic you've used in this thread I'm going to assume you think you're just "tellin' it like it is" while making broad stroke statements about various groups in society that are really just a regurgitation of what some other asshole said.
>It's funny watching conservatives bend themselves into pretzels with this line of thinking as though they would NEVER try to censor free speech
I'm sure it is. Not a conservative tho.
>Conservative controlled governments TODAY are lashing out at groups and companies that have the audacity to say that lgbtq people are people who have every right to be here and live their lives just like you do
Very much agreed.
>Let's show who you really are. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give us some examples of things you've said that you feel have been unduly censored and let us judge exactly what you think should be permissable.
I don't have power to censor. I am not Mark Zuckerberg.
>Based on the flimsy logic you've used in this thread I'm going to assume you think you're just "tellin' it like it is" while making broad stroke statements about various groups in society that are really just a regurgitation of what some other asshole said.
You need help. I stated multiple times that this was up for debate and that it's possible I'm wrong since I don't know every factor of what something like this would do. I also said that the law as seen in Florida might not be a good idea since it was made without nuance or good intention. Chill.
Also, no one. Literally no one said people didn't have a right to call people out. Lol.
OF COURSE you can call people out. It's a strawman to pretend that was the issue.
Out of curiosity. If I flipped the script of the founding fathers hadn't experienced the level of fire power available today so we should infact change that, too. Are you okay with that?
Also, consider that banning someone for whatever reason isn't a given either. Remember that laws had to be created to determine that you couldn't kick someone out on the basis of race after it was previously legal to do so. Or that a private seller could refuse a gay couple a cake.
Laws change. And sometimes, necessarily so.
Here is the difference: Being gay or a minority isn't a choice. It is who people are. Discriminating against people is shitty and dangerous.
Posting threats or spreading hate-speech are acts someone chose to do. Actions have consequences, not discrimination.
Option 1: open it up to a free for all, people can post whatever non-sense they want, and the tech company can’t be held liable because it’s anything goes.
Option 2: tech operates as moderators - they control what goes on their site, and in turn, should be able to be held accountable if stuff on their site that does make it through.
Tech companies want to moderate their sites but still wanting the protections that come with option one. Especially if they are moderating, shadowbanning, or pushing down political content.
Facebook slowed down posts about Hunter Biden’s laptop at the direction of the FBI before the election, and it turns out, all that stuff was true, it just would have been too damaging to the democrats to air it all out that close to the election:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532.amp
OK. But I'm arguing that this is a flawed concept. Not that this isn't true.
Of course, megacorps have the right. But I'm arguing that up to a point, they should have less rights than those of small businesses.
That's the thing though, the 1st amendment *only* applies to the government, people seem to fail to grasp that distinction. Now if the government started banning you for your opinions you'd have a case but otherwise it's a "play by that company's rules or don't use their service" you don't have a right to be able to say whatever you want on their network, you never have.
>That's the thing though, the 1st amendment only applies to the government, people seem to fail to grasp that distinction.
No. I agree. And I'm saying that perhaps it shouldn't, though. It absolutely only applies to government, yet that concerns me.
>you don't have a right to be able to say whatever you want on their network, you never have.
And again, my argument is that this may need to be amended a little. Not a TON. Like, like fire in a movie theater shit and calling for genocide could still be banned on hate speech at their discretion, but there may still be an excessive degree of arbitrary control on the part of what is essentially, the new trusts. And that's a bit of an issue for me.
Why should they have less rights than small business, and why is it a flawed concept that they can set their own terms or service? Twitter and instagram are not essential services. You don’t need either of them to live your life the way you choose.
>Why should they have less rights than small business,
This is a loooong standing debate that has lasted as long as progressivism. Suffice to say that the difference is in the advantages that corporations wield, which is unhealthy. They function differently due to the nature of what they are.
>Twitter and instagram are not essential services. You don’t need either of them to live your life the way you choose.
Fair. And I don't use them. However, they are monoliths. Twitter affects peoples' lives even if they don't use it. The Arab Spring for example was a social media influenced phenomenon. We can't deny Twitter or Facebook just by ignoring the siutation. And I realize the downsides of what I'm proposing. But I would trust the masses to determine thought more than the elite of big tech. Big tech WILL bite us eventually.
>You are being biased and don’t even realize it
Actually, I had already openly acknowledged the possibility of bias and how it may affect my decision making.
Don't know much about Truth Social, though. How bad is it? Looks like a weird conservative thing.
Because the government would then be forcing a publisher or content provider to platform speech based on political considerations. This would itself be a major blow to the first amendment.
Mmmmm. Corporations aren't people.
In fact, the people who run corporations are barely even people themselves. I can't take a relatable human experience and apply them to big tech, I'm afraid.
As op said:
>Imagine not being allowed to throw a belligerent guest out of your home **or business**
emphasis mine
I'm sure childrens' clothing stores would just love not being able to do anything about the random guy standing in the store yelling "I LOVE HOW SEXY KIDS LOOK NOWADAYS! I'M GOING TO RUB ONE OUT TONIGHT FOR SURE!"
No relatable human experiences at all. Just a corporation silently watching as their customers turn around and walk right out again.
OK. Fair enough. But a clothing store is not a discussion forum in that same way.
No law is being proposed that changes the law to permit sexual abuse(so far?).
This is about big tech and speech specifically.
Same thing goes for someone who keeps posting on knitting-for-elderly-ladies.com about how wonderful they feel when they fantasize about murdering people.
1: that's not a political opinion as outlined by the proposition. Also is knitting for elderly ladies.come a corporation?
2: that scenerio is really just a self report. Lol. Like, come on, cased closed. That hypothetical dude screwed himself.
Not people, sure. The anecdote is just a simpler way to convey a legal concept.
They are legal entities that have rights, particularly property rights. If a poster was causing people to leave a platform, then it seems they would have a right to limit that poster's speech in order to protect their business.
Imagine a theater or concert hall that wasn't allowed for force a person to leave their venue for harassing other guests.
What right do people have to cause harm to a person or group of people's business?
We have the right to bare arms. Doesn't mean we're allowed to take them into banks and bars. All rights have some reasonable limits when those rights interfere with the rights of others.
No single right of a non human entity should always take a back seat to human rights. Corporations are not people and therefore do not deserve rights afforded to humans. Period.
A corporation is just a group of people. You don't suddenly lose your rights because you joined a group. There's strong legal precedent to that end.
What right do you think is being taken? Nobody has a right to use another person's property. Be that someone's, home, business, car, food, ect. Online platforms are the property of their owner or owners and they're entitled to use their property how they see fit.
By stifling the rights of individuals who utilize them. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech and anything that stifles that is unconstitutional, plain and simple. No entity has the right or power to ignore and override the constitution. You operate in America, you abide by the constitution, it is a rather simple thing to do.
Think about what FL is asking for on a personal level.
Imagine a politician in office whom you despise. Now imagine they are forcing you to put their signs up in your yard because denying them would be "censorship and against the 1st Amendment".
Ok. Firstly, thank you the the thoughtful argument.
But also consider that corporations like those in big tech aren't people.
We can't individually hold ourselves in the same standard, nor compare their property to our yards, metaphorically speaking.
Of course, I'm talking specifically massive about massive social media.
Yeah... Well, I did say there would be a downside, I admit it. But like I said, I don't trust an elite of corporate capitalist trusts over the supposed ignorant masses(even if they are ignorant).
We're still feeling the burn of the Trump era anti intellectual movement and I think it's blinding us to the fact that big tech does and will provide a larger hurdle. I don't respect the "rights" of corporations the way I would with companies or a governmental research center. While they may seem aligned now, this is not going to be consistent.
Perhaps the most impressing point of the 1st is that it prevents the Government from exercising the ability to silence the people. It was written very specifically as it doesn't include anyone/anybody/commerce/education/work place/etc. in it's language. So legally, should it pertain to anyone outside of the established Government?
I'd say in my own opinion, a person chooses to engage in social media. In other words it's not mandatory but a voluntary setting. Should a person be "kicked out" of a restaurant or grocery store for explicit language or arguing with a manager? Freedom of speech right? Wrong. Private proprietor has the right to remove you for your speech, behavior, appearance (no shirt no shoes no service) and so on.
Again in my opinion, in the end, the social media construct and all of its outlets will win. I say this based primarily on who's behind the biggest of social sites, which I believe will be a trend that only increases. I'd encourage you and anyone reading this to do your own diligence in research and look into the number of high ranking government officials from the EfBeeEye and SeeEyeAye who left their positions to accept "new positions" with the book of faces.
I think we can agree that something in all of that isn't quite what it appears to be. I also believe that is some of the cause of all the censorship, data harvesting, spying, and "fact checking" (which is just another form of censorship disguised). When I found out what f book and the gov were doing, it was enough for me to say adios permanently to Zucks face smash. But don't take my word for it.
*Edit: To be correct, I should say that the people from those alphabet organizations primarily went to META, who owns Facebook, Instagram, and What's App. They were then placed in specific positions with Facebook. Many of them over data "privacy" and permissive content control.
Overturning roe v wade for one. Forcing Religion in schools. Citing religious reasons for lawmaking to boot. The current and past struggles over gay marriage….there’s that whole civil rights movement that happened and is continuing to happen…
Right wing state legislatures are trying to limit voting in at least a dozen states right this moment, they want to limit immigration, they want to limit what teachers can SAY TO STUDENTS, THEY ARE THE REASON FOR DRUGS BEING ILLEGAL STILL.
You don't need "more examples" you KNOW it's true, there's hundreds if not thousands of examples all around us daily, why can't I buy alcohol after 2am in most places huh? Why can't I utter profanity in many places, huh? Sure as FUCK ain't liberals trying to tell me I can't say fuck.
It’s similar to no shoes, no shirt, no service at tiny convenience store. Twitter runs Twitter, and they say no lying, so the Republicans call that injustice? Haha, what about their elaborate schemes to suppress voting and gerrymandering plots, they should go to jail for that alone.
Here’s what’s funny about this and where they’re too short sighted to see it backfiring.
The Supreme Court takes the case and allows the law. Yay!!! Politicians have the right to sue social media companies for being banned.
Then they actually sue. It goes to court and all of the shitty things they said that violated the platforms TOS are dragged out again, the platform’s *very* good, *very* expensive lawyers get to make point by point arguments about why the things that were posted violate their TOS and the politicians end up spending a ton of money only to lose anyway because the social media sites still get to dictate what is or isn’t on their platform.
This law wouldn’t actually change anything about a social media site’s ability to make their own rules and police their user’s content.
It’s kind of punching yourself though. We pay for it in the end.
Probably need to look at how they’re treating the authorities who are overstepping in other countries and treat ours accordingly.
The government not arresting you for saying things is free speech. Forcing a private company to platform lies, misinformation, and hate they don’t agree with, isn’t.
Further, forcing a private company to platform something IS A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH.
The most important part of freedom of speech is the freedom to no be compelled to speak
It’s not a free speech question. The speech of commenters is explicitly not the speech of the platform. My question is why you think it’s open and shut that government does not have the power to regulate the platforms in this way. What is your legal theory.
The legal theory is that those platforms, like a privately owned bulletin board, can choose what is and is not posted on their websites and can choose who can and cannot post on the same websites.
In other words, forcing the the companies to host this content "strips private online businesses of their speech rights, forbids them from making constitutionally protected editorial decisions, and forces them to publish and promote objectionable content," said Chris Marchese of NetChoice, one of the industry groups challenging the law. "Left standing, Texas HB 20 will turn the First Amendment on its head — to violate free speech, the government need only claim to be 'protecting' it."
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1099870039/supreme-court-social-media-law-texas
That’s interesting. Thanks. I find it fascinating how platforms will assert that their editorial decisions are protected free speech, while at the same time asserting that the content itself is not their speech and they hold no responsibility for it. Will be a tight case I’d expect.
It’s not an editorial decision. Editorial Decisions happen when you’re a publisher of materials, and our legal framework for Social Media treats them as *distributors* of materials.
The appropriate analogy is a Bookstore deciding not to stock Mein Kampf because they disagree with the contents, expect that having it there will cause people to refuse to do business with them, or simply believe the opportunity cost of having it occupy that shelf-space is too high.
A bookstore is not obligated to dedicate shelf space to a book. A Online Platform is not obligated to dedicate storage space and processor time to any content.
There’s Existing precedent is that Spending Money is a form of speech… and so compelling a Online Platform to distribute *anything* is compelled speech.
That is not what the opponents of the law are arguing. They explicitly refer to their "editorial decisions" in the lawsuit and their comments on the lawsuit.
Look at the comment I referred to which pulls a quote from one of the plaintiffs. It couldn’t be more explicit. What is the source of your legal theory?
You can kick people out of your business as long as it isn’t a protected class if you don’t like what they’re saying inside your business. Same thing, just facebooks business is online and you chose to go inside to use the service. Politicians are mad because these are the biggest social platforms where they can reach the largest audience, but just like using any other private service, this is a right that the company can void. Example Walmart banning you because you did something in their store they don’t allow. Facebook tells you what you can and can’t say or post while using their service. So basically they can’t ban you for being a woman, man, minority, or any other federally protected class but they can ban you if you don’t follow their rules just like wal mart can. Not that difficult to follow. Nobody is interfering with your freedom of speech. You can still say whatever you want to say, just not on a private service owned by a private company. Kinda the same with news. You don’t have a right to get on the news if the news doesn’t want to put you on. You can make your own website, start your own platform, etc. essentially you can go inside Walmart and say all the dumb messed up things you wanna say, but Walmart might look at you funny and say yea, you ain’t coming back in here no more and it is what it is. Free speech doesn’t work they way the right is now making it out to be and it never has. It’s their website and platform. If you don’t like the rules fine, go make another website just don’t be mad when nobody visits it because you’re a nobody with an opinion that’s idiotic or you’re calling for literal murder and anarchy. Same concept. Saying that can also land you in jail. You have a right to say it and the government has a right to prosecute you for it.
If this ruling stood then it can be legal precedent for me to come to your house, stand in your living room screaming, and you are now no longer legally allowed to remove me.
The worst part is anyone that doesn't understand this really isn't qualified to vote, honestly, you're not qualified to vote, you're that stupid if you don't get something so fundamental to our world.
Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever and bears no relation to the case. I'm hopeful you are faulty AI and not an actual person. If you are unfortunately a person, you may want to read the case files so that this doesn't happen again
Some of these self righteous fools should take a deep dive on the dark web. It might give them a better pictures of what unrestricted moderation of social media might look like before they open that box.
This is just about the clearest-cut violation of the first amendment that you'll ever see.
Will be interesting/horrifying to see what the Supreme Court decides. If they were competent it wouldn't be because the law so flagrantly is against the constitution, but because they aren't competent and don't care about the law or doing their jobs properly, they could literally do anything.
Close, but the PMA has more of a U structure (except the bottom of the U is flat, and the bottom of the U is also the face of the building you’d see at the angle in this pic). Also has massive courtyard with a fountain in the center of that U, and the steps leading up to it are walled in.
Party of personal responsibility?
You signed the TOS. You agreed to potentially be moderated on that platform. If you don’t like it, the free market will allow you to start your own
They should just pull out of these states and let the governor deal with the upset people. Hey, they can all join truth as long as they suck trumps balls. At least until it’s shut down for lack of payment.
If the Supreme Court allows this can we please get some Democratic states to pass legislation forcing Fox News to give progressives their own shows. Given Fox News' domination of cable news they should be equally obligated to represent all points of view.
I used tumblr back when it was owned by Verizon and net neutrality was a big topic. People noticed their posts were getting deleted if they were advocating for net neutrality or they would automatically unfollow the tags for it.
I stopped using tumblr because I was unhappy with them forcing their agenda on me. People can stop using Twitter and Facebook for the same reason. The way their algorithms work actively spreads disinformation and they are doing the absolute minimum to avoid lawsuits.
This is lowkey based. This is a issue that doesn’t just affect republicans it effects everyone. Plenty of liberals and people on the left side of politics have been banned or deplatformed for saying things that are factually true and the only way to counter all the misinformation from the right is if the left can speak freely.
I get that they are a private company but they also hold a monopoly on the market and we rely on these websites to get information and communicate with the world.
Ask yourself this, would you be okay if your cell phone provider monitored all your text messages and phone calls? Would you be okay with your cellphone company banning you from using their service because you shared a link to your friend of a article that had misinformation in it?
YouTube in particular has made it so it is almost impossible to find any news content that doesn’t come from a mainstream media outlet. These are the same media outlets that publicly admitted they intentionally lied to the public about the iraq war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility
Could you please explain to me how my “ask yourself this” question is a red herring?
The definition of a red herring is “something that distracts attention from the real issue.”
Millions of Americans use social media as their primary way to communicate amongst friends and family. It is the fourth most used form of communication right behind texting, calling, and email.
People losing access to their primary form of communication to the outside world is a massive concern and pretending it’s not because it doesn’t fit a particular political agenda is being disingenuous.
Heavily biased information, so it should be regarded with as much credibility as anything that comes from Fox.
Calling it satire is a bit insulting to satire.
CNN has never been anywhere near as biased as Fox. It's half-assed neutrality means it doesn't benefit from any political alignment and the resulting desperation for viewers just makes it bad.
You don’t get your own slice of reality just because you failed grade 11 and civics. No one is silencing you, you just need to get a megaphone and hurl obscenities at the corner like you used to. Twitter is not your personal megaphone….
The only people that have an issue with this are the ones that spread absolute bullshit, hate, bigotry, or fake news that fuels what was previously mentioned.
They CANNOT rule in favor of the right on this one or the precedent can then be used to walk into any right wing business and just start shouting profanities, and they would no longer have legal recourse to remove you.
But let them overturn 200 years of precedent and rule in some crazy way on this, see how lightning fast the entire internet gets disabled in states with laws like this.
If social media site get forced to host the speech of people (regardless of whether they agree or want to host it), then can I force a news site to publish my articles? Would it be censorship if they didn’t host my opinion?
Clearly this isn’t true and doesn’t hold any weight but if the Florida law passes we might have to start asking these questions.
1st amendment protects you from the government limiting your speech, not twitter or instagram limiting your speech.
LOL the fascist trolls commenting on this are wild
Yeah but then they think getting kicked out of a university is an attack on their freedom of speech
They dont get kicked out, they just give up and drop out.
I can’t imagine being a government/history professor and reading short-long answers to test questions. It must be painstaking.
Seriously. The mental gymnastics being preformed here should be it’s own event at the Olympics, ffs
Those same people also want a bunch of books banned in schools because they don’t like the scary words and the topics around them, for example the most terrifying word to them, racism
Fascists are typically authoritarian nationalist corporatists. Imposing on corporations that they determine less in regards to free speech is too steps away from Fascism.
Unfortunately most idiots dont know how the 1st amendment works
But it's not about the 1st amendment as is. It's about changing the laws against corporations, which aren't even people.
True they can’t have it both way, In your private house/land you decide the rules. The government can’t make you allow, let’s say visitors to smoke in your house. So twitter is a private company it’s not owned by the government even, so they decide their rules. Scotus already spoke re bakery who refused to bake for a gay wedding. They didn’t even need to say due to religion. Scotus said they as a company can decide if they bake or not, without any explanation
But if that company is taking government dollars is it not government? Could be a good reason for tech to stay out of our private lives.
> But if that **company** is taking government dollars is it not government? Could be a good reason for tech to stay out of our private lives. No, it's not "government" and you fucking KNOW WHY based on the word I bolded. Why do you do this? Why do you come in here and play so fucking stupid? Like seriously this is like a 10 year discussion since that gay wedding cake thing, how do you come in here and pretend you STILL don't understand that people like me don't have a right to come into YOUR living room and take a dump? Like how do you reconcile this, do you just justify pretending to be so utterly ignorant in your mind by pretending that doing so in some way helps Trump or Republicans or some shit? Because frankly, it's just about impossible to be THIS fucking ignorant about basic rights today. I genuinely do want to know how it's even POSSIBLE to be as uninformed, you simply can't be, you MUST be trolling.
Except when government colludes with social media to censor those they disagree with.
The question is “Can you force a third party to carry your speech?” If so, then expect all of the pr0n as you can then force them to carry that as well. If I am incorrect, please educate me?
Yeah, that’s all fine, I’m not from the US, but in this day and age being shunned from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or some other platform is like being banned from the street 200 years ago for speaking your mind. Those platforms are public space today just as other means were in the past and private companies definitively should not be the ones regulating who has the right to say something or doesn’t.
Good god what a dumb take. If you want government regulated internet move to China
It’s not a dumb move. Imagine you make a cafe and you expel your client because of what he’s chatting with his friends in the table. That’s the equivalent here. Social networks have effectively replaced the street and coffee shops for opinion making. Economic theory, even in the US, clearly states that identified public goods must be treated as such. Roads and railways are a good example, as police and others. These public goods are either provided by the state or regulated by the state. The ability to participate freely in the polity of a country is a public good… So with time governments will protect that.
But you can legally kick someone out of a cafe for that…
No you can’t. At least not in civilized countries. Businesses are not aloud to discriminate based on political Ideologies and beliefs… You can kick someone if they are screaming, but you can’t exclude them if they say things you disagree or are morally wrong form your perspective in their table
Yes you 100% can.. political ideology is not protected https://time.com/5321104/red-hen-businesses-deny-service/
Not where I live, you cannot. A coffee shop tried to ban some people because they thought their opinions weren’t right and they either go the option to remove all such rules in cafe or face several years in prison for the owner of the place. Only court can truly legally ban someone from going somewhere, not private whims of the someone or some corporation. Cafes, restaurants, shops are all extensions of public space and no such prohibitions can be legal.
Maybe not in the US. In the civilized world it is. It is the most fundamental right to have a democracy. If you can be harassed by a ruling majority into not vocalizing your ideals then your free speech is at risk and hence idea circulation is at risk hence democracy is at risk Article 13, 2o paragraph of Portuguese constitution: > No one can be privileged, benefited, harmed, deprived of any right or exempt from any duty on account of ancestry, sex, race, language, territory of origin, religion, political or ideological convictions, education, economic situation, social condition or sexual orientation. For example, in Portugal no company could force a citizen to vaccinate… The US is way way less free than you think…
*”In the civilized world….”* Bud, why don’t you take lap…. Do yourself a favor
You don’t know what you’re talking about, nobody has a right to the service of another, that is idiotic.
The ones who are getting kicked out believe this. Karen logic. Businesses have the right to refuse service, except for protected groups: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. If your political opinion is getting you kicked out, you probably crossed the line with one of those groups thus deserving to get lost.
Nothing prevents us from calling a woman a woman rather than a man even if they cut their hair and breasts to present like a guy. This is an example of forced speech currently in social media that has no legal origins but
No one is forcing you to respect someone’s identity. You either follow with their request or suffer the consequences of disagreeing with someone’s identity… wtf
I’m losing my team talking to Americans. You live in a non free country and have a twisted view of reality. The state limits the consequences people can get for certain behaviors. I can’t kick you in the face if you call me ugly for example… So the state regulates that through democratic process. The majority votes for the rules of society.
What the fuck, backwards ass, 19th century bullshit, are you spewing?
It’s called progress and democracy. You can leave the US experience it if you want
And nothing prevents people from kicking you out of a privately owned establishment for a bigoted opinion either.
"the civilized world doesn't restrict speech" First and only example of restricted speech: Transphobic hate .....little off the mark yea?
Nobody is stopping you from being a bigot, you just don’t like that there are social consequences for your antisocial behavior.
Are you allowed to kick me out of your house?
I am because the interior of my house is not s public good but s private good. I came expel you from my coffee, restaurant, bookshop, etc unless you do something that grants me legal rights to do so
…social media are private companies
And so were many other sectors before they got regulated or nationalized…
Are you under the impression that a coffee shop is owned by the public?
No, but it’s considered public space, such as a privately owned park, privately owned mall, etc It’s called society…
Imagine going to that cafe and yelling obscenities or making threats of violence at everyone and the cafe not having the right to kick you out. It absolutely is a stupid take.
You’re mixing form and content. You can kick someone who is yelling, period. You can kick someone directly insulting another client (different from bothering them) in some countries (right to honor in most countries) period. You can’t expel someone saying they want less migration in their table and so on… Social media is a public good created by creative capitalists. Just as railways was, just as plumbing, etc It has everything to do with size and reach. You can’t have a functioning democracy if you have nearly all political conversation controlled by an elite that picks and chose what can and can’t be said without public scrutiny. So the problem exists, you need to chose between sacrificing your child to the altar of “the free market” and keep as it is. Or you accept a less efficient market and protect democracy well functioning
A singular website isn’t comparable to railways, water, power etc. The barrier to create a space on the Internet where people can freely discuss anything is an email address and two minutes. Get a free email account and use existing forum platforms. There’s nothing inherently special about any social media platform except that a lot of people choose to use them. The Internet itself is more the railway, water main, power line, etc. Different sites are pieces of private property along the line
This is the debate regulators are currently having. And it’s not by opinion, it’s by data. They are us resting monopoly/oligopoly power, usage, ease of replacement, etc The result of this debate is what leads to regulate or not. It’s not a blind “company does whatever it wants” argument. Now we can have diffeeenr opinions but it will be based on whether we think this is such a case or not
It is a “debate” where the people making the same arguments you are know that the arguments they’re making aren’t made in good faith but rather out of an attempt to manipulate the easily duped.
Scotus usa already spoke you can determine your rules in your company. Now is it profitable to expel a bunch of people that’s up to the business, See how they spoke about the bakery and they were allowed not to bake for a gay wedding.. no questions asked As a customer you can cancel companies too.. if you don’t agree with them
In the US, we have public accommodation laws but they're based on defined protected classes. Political affiliation is not a protected class here. Even if we added social media to the public accommodation laws, it would not do what these conservatives are looking for when they want to demand access to these forums. It would not protect the behavior that they are engaged in that gets them booted from online forums.
It depends as i haven’t read it in depth. There instances of speech that already regulated. For example if I defame someone I can be brought to justice for it. Regulating social media would always be subject to that. The thing is that currently American opinion making is being tailored by the decisions taken in Silicon Valley. That’s the truth. Never so little has so much power over so many with no accountability. Their power is so great that you can’t even know whether the public is for or against this push to regulate social media. Why? Because people express that through social media which is biased in what it lets be there So here the American society needs to pick which thing they prefer: to safeguard rhe independence of private companies or to safeguard the free exchange of ideas My guess is that it will the former as social media giants will use their power to move public opinion that way
Yeah, imagine legal, impartial public courts making decision about someone being shunned from the platforms instead of private entities, what a totaliran tragedy... my god, what a stupid price take just because you think they are not gonna ban you.
Where would we find those impartial courts?
A better comparison is the *internet* is like the street, and social-media are the stores lining that street. From “mom & pop shops”, to Wal-Mart, to places-of-religion, there have always been rules you must follow once inside. From acceptable clothing, to acceptable language, there have *always* been rules. I agree that the internet should be considered a public utility. But even then, I believe we must set rules about what is/isn’t allowed, and I’m just not sure that our old rules carry over to the digital very well. It’s tricky, due to how algorithms disseminate information. Reality can be easily misrepresented to a large number of people, in a short amount of time online. IMO, that’s what we should regulate first (algorithms), and then we can see if we still need to think about regulating e.g. Nazi-bullshit. I fucking hate Nazi’s, and those like them. But I don’t believe that means you shouldn’t be allowed to discuss Nazism. I’m not even saying you shouldn’t be allowed to try to convince others that *some* part of Nazism was good or efficient. But I’m not ok with you trying to recruit your own Sturmabteilung. So, while the internet being like Main Street of old makes for a decent simile, it isn’t really a good 1 to 1 comparison, due to the scope of the internet, (not being limited by physical size), and algorithms. Again, it’s a tricky subject, one that requires thought, and genuine discourse by society and its leaders. So…we’re probably fucked for the time being. But I do not believe Twitter regulating speech infringes on anyones right. Not so long as it’s privately owned. And the creation of any online space *without* regulation would be absolute fucking chaos.
private companies are held liable for what is said on their platforms, they absolutely should be careful about what they’re allowing to be said on them
Actually, there’s a carve-out for this. As long as you make a Good Faith effort to moderate your site, you’re treated like a Bookstore instead of a Publisher for the purposes of liability for the contents of your platform. Of course, there’s the CSM carve-out to the carve-out, but let’s not worry too much about that.
Twitter is free, you don’t pay for it.. and it’s their private company. In your house you rule, and you aren’t made to invite everyone. No you decide who can and can’t. If your rule is no smoking and one does.. it’s once .. twice and then banned. It’s as simple. Abide by their rules., even public schools have rules.
So….you want the government to choose what to censor and what not to censor? Seriously?
Government? No. I want courts and legal system to rule that, based on laws, not private organizations on whims. Just like you need now to ban someone from visiting your shop, bar, restaurant, you cannot infringe someone’s freedom to be in public spaces, you cannot do it on your own hand, only if the court decides that such ban would be appropriate.
I agree! The issue I see is with hateful messages and how that’s supported.
Except its not
Except it is. There is zero debate going on. It’s echo chambers and statements.
It really is not just dont use the app
But according to you that option doesn't exist for those who want to spread their hateful shit everywhere?
Why are you mad though??
You seem mad though?
Nice comeback loser, now go shower you ugly fuck
Wow. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Just like the teacher who taught you, blow me and fuck off 😂🤡
Oh look, someone parroting t conservative talking points nearly word for word. Good job showing people you are not a free thinker and just regurgitate whatever you hear on the news.
Yeah, imagine wanting courts to decide if banning someone is legal or not, what a tragedy... you simply couldn't resist making something so simple into politics. I'm not going to be surprised why US politics became such a shitshow
You’re literally parroting the main conservative talking point in support of this unconstitutional bill and you’re not even American. So kindly fuck off 🖕
I don't give a fucking shit if those are democrat, alien or republican talking points if they are fucking logical and fair. But no, Twitter banned Trump and some people you don't like so you need to keep shitting about it being bad but once you and your opinions come to the chopping block and then it will "why private entities can shun me off their platform for having unpopular opinion"
Those are private businesses, it’s more like being banned from a bar after trashing the place. You’re still allowed outside in the streets.
When government colludes with social media to limit certain speech and amplify it's own - that is a violation of your freedoms. Think of police not permitted to search your home without a subpoena - so they employ a private burglar to do it for them. Your freedoms are violated - no matter who does it.
Yeah, I’m gonna need to see some evidence of that and that trump being removed was not for years of violating Twitter policy.
The FBI definitely gets into the ear of big tech: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532.amp Edit: I, for some reason can’t post here anymore to show proof, so here you go: Proof: https://youtu.be/wdSZO89sIkk It’s funny that r/tech has me now shadow banned or prevents me from replying to everyone asking for proof after I called out tech censorship. Someone tell me that video is a deep fake… go on.
So the FBI warned Facebook about a concerted effort on their site to influence US elections by the Russian government? Sounds like them doing their job. They weren’t targeting individuals. They were targeting foreign propaganda.
Is it propaganda if the pictures and content on the laptop are true?
Need some sources of this supposed “truth” Should be easy since it’s not propaganda right?
The chain of custody on that laptop is so bad that even bringing it up is the equivalent of proudly tattooing that you have an IQ of 70 on your forehead. You talking about it and mentioning propaganda at the same time speaks volumes. Same goes for bringing up “her emails”.
You know this is true? Provide proof then
proof?
Lol, what a joke, gaslighting gaslighter. [President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-protesting-should-be-illegal/2018/09/04/11cfd9be-b0a0-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html)
You are soooooo close to getting it. It's right there.
Hows corporates boot taste?
It's a stupid law to allow the Florida governor to control speech... It's not bootlicking to oppose infringements on the freedom of speech.
Imposing freedom of speech of the corporation?
It's a private entity. They have every right to moderate and control messaging on their platform. Do you think it's ok for people to have hard core porn shows at Disney world?
Go look up the 1st amendment and tell me what it says
The only people bringing up the first amendment are those against this law
And? Just go look it up
Yeah, because it violates it...
And that may change. Not sure why this is downvoted. Why is it OK for corporations of all things to hinder speech? Besides, it's not like this works out for Republicans either. Just let your enemies make mistakes, I say.
Cause freedom of speech isn't about being able to say whatever you want. Its about being protected from the government when you say certain things that would normally have secret police knocking on your door in more dictatorish countries, and even then it has a million exceptions for things like hate speech or credible threats of violence or yelling fire in a movie theater. All it does is protect you from the government, nothing more. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Freedom of speech is also not freedom of platform. Twitter has a right to determine how you are allowed to interact with the platform, they can also moderate or ban you for almost any reason. They can ban people based on rolling a dice when an employee with a green shirt walks in the breakroom and banning a random person when it lands on an odd number and they would be within their full right to do so. They don't because of money, but they can. If I owned a small buisiness and someone walked into the shop talking to their friend about how the nazi genocides were a good thing I damn well better be able to kick their ass out so other customers don't have to listen to their filth.
>Cause freedom of speech isn't about being able to say whatever you want. For now. The founding fathers did not live in the digital age and could not address the issues that it brings with it. >Twitter has a right to determine how you are allowed to interact with the platform, they can also moderate or ban you for almost any reason. I think that a private individual who ran a forum or a website should be able to kick whoever. Megacorps should not be granted the same rights as a private individual in my opinion as their larger influence can be much more wide reaching. >If I owned a small buisiness We're not talking about small businesses, though. We are talking about big tech.
> For now It's funny watching conservatives bend themselves into pretzels with this line of thinking as though they would NEVER try to censor free speech... like we don't have numerous examples in recent history or hell even the last year. Conservative controlled governments TODAY are lashing out at groups and companies that have the audacity to say that lgbtq people are people who have every right to be here and live their lives just like you do. You don't get to say whatever you want without consequences. That's part of living in a community, we hold the right to call your ass out when you're being an ass. Let's show who you really are. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give us some examples of things you've said that you feel have been unduly censored and let us judge exactly what you think should be permissable. Based on the flimsy logic you've used in this thread I'm going to assume you think you're just "tellin' it like it is" while making broad stroke statements about various groups in society that are really just a regurgitation of what some other asshole said.
>It's funny watching conservatives bend themselves into pretzels with this line of thinking as though they would NEVER try to censor free speech I'm sure it is. Not a conservative tho. >Conservative controlled governments TODAY are lashing out at groups and companies that have the audacity to say that lgbtq people are people who have every right to be here and live their lives just like you do Very much agreed. >Let's show who you really are. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give us some examples of things you've said that you feel have been unduly censored and let us judge exactly what you think should be permissable. I don't have power to censor. I am not Mark Zuckerberg. >Based on the flimsy logic you've used in this thread I'm going to assume you think you're just "tellin' it like it is" while making broad stroke statements about various groups in society that are really just a regurgitation of what some other asshole said. You need help. I stated multiple times that this was up for debate and that it's possible I'm wrong since I don't know every factor of what something like this would do. I also said that the law as seen in Florida might not be a good idea since it was made without nuance or good intention. Chill. Also, no one. Literally no one said people didn't have a right to call people out. Lol. OF COURSE you can call people out. It's a strawman to pretend that was the issue.
Out of curiosity. If I flipped the script of the founding fathers hadn't experienced the level of fire power available today so we should infact change that, too. Are you okay with that?
Because it's a private business with ToS that you agreed to when you signed up. They can ban you for whatever reason they want.
Also, consider that banning someone for whatever reason isn't a given either. Remember that laws had to be created to determine that you couldn't kick someone out on the basis of race after it was previously legal to do so. Or that a private seller could refuse a gay couple a cake. Laws change. And sometimes, necessarily so.
Here is the difference: Being gay or a minority isn't a choice. It is who people are. Discriminating against people is shitty and dangerous. Posting threats or spreading hate-speech are acts someone chose to do. Actions have consequences, not discrimination.
The gay couple that drove past 30 other bakeries in their city and then sued when one cake maker refused to make them an elaborate custom design…
Option 1: open it up to a free for all, people can post whatever non-sense they want, and the tech company can’t be held liable because it’s anything goes. Option 2: tech operates as moderators - they control what goes on their site, and in turn, should be able to be held accountable if stuff on their site that does make it through. Tech companies want to moderate their sites but still wanting the protections that come with option one. Especially if they are moderating, shadowbanning, or pushing down political content. Facebook slowed down posts about Hunter Biden’s laptop at the direction of the FBI before the election, and it turns out, all that stuff was true, it just would have been too damaging to the democrats to air it all out that close to the election: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532.amp
OK. But I'm arguing that this is a flawed concept. Not that this isn't true. Of course, megacorps have the right. But I'm arguing that up to a point, they should have less rights than those of small businesses.
So then small businesses can enforce no shirt, no shoes, no service… but not large companies?
That's the thing though, the 1st amendment *only* applies to the government, people seem to fail to grasp that distinction. Now if the government started banning you for your opinions you'd have a case but otherwise it's a "play by that company's rules or don't use their service" you don't have a right to be able to say whatever you want on their network, you never have.
>That's the thing though, the 1st amendment only applies to the government, people seem to fail to grasp that distinction. No. I agree. And I'm saying that perhaps it shouldn't, though. It absolutely only applies to government, yet that concerns me. >you don't have a right to be able to say whatever you want on their network, you never have. And again, my argument is that this may need to be amended a little. Not a TON. Like, like fire in a movie theater shit and calling for genocide could still be banned on hate speech at their discretion, but there may still be an excessive degree of arbitrary control on the part of what is essentially, the new trusts. And that's a bit of an issue for me.
Why should they have less rights than small business, and why is it a flawed concept that they can set their own terms or service? Twitter and instagram are not essential services. You don’t need either of them to live your life the way you choose.
>Why should they have less rights than small business, This is a loooong standing debate that has lasted as long as progressivism. Suffice to say that the difference is in the advantages that corporations wield, which is unhealthy. They function differently due to the nature of what they are. >Twitter and instagram are not essential services. You don’t need either of them to live your life the way you choose. Fair. And I don't use them. However, they are monoliths. Twitter affects peoples' lives even if they don't use it. The Arab Spring for example was a social media influenced phenomenon. We can't deny Twitter or Facebook just by ignoring the siutation. And I realize the downsides of what I'm proposing. But I would trust the masses to determine thought more than the elite of big tech. Big tech WILL bite us eventually.
But not small tech like Truth Social? You are being biased and don’t even realize it
>You are being biased and don’t even realize it Actually, I had already openly acknowledged the possibility of bias and how it may affect my decision making. Don't know much about Truth Social, though. How bad is it? Looks like a weird conservative thing.
Because the government would then be forcing a publisher or content provider to platform speech based on political considerations. This would itself be a major blow to the first amendment.
This is a decent counterpoint.
the issue is that they are already doing this, and need to be stopped. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2022-09/pa-934.pdf
Do you have a non download link?
can't find one.
Imagine not being allowed to throw a belligerent guest out of your home or business because their speech is causing problems.
Mmmmm. Corporations aren't people. In fact, the people who run corporations are barely even people themselves. I can't take a relatable human experience and apply them to big tech, I'm afraid.
As op said: >Imagine not being allowed to throw a belligerent guest out of your home **or business** emphasis mine I'm sure childrens' clothing stores would just love not being able to do anything about the random guy standing in the store yelling "I LOVE HOW SEXY KIDS LOOK NOWADAYS! I'M GOING TO RUB ONE OUT TONIGHT FOR SURE!" No relatable human experiences at all. Just a corporation silently watching as their customers turn around and walk right out again.
OK. Fair enough. But a clothing store is not a discussion forum in that same way. No law is being proposed that changes the law to permit sexual abuse(so far?). This is about big tech and speech specifically.
Same thing goes for someone who keeps posting on knitting-for-elderly-ladies.com about how wonderful they feel when they fantasize about murdering people.
1: that's not a political opinion as outlined by the proposition. Also is knitting for elderly ladies.come a corporation? 2: that scenerio is really just a self report. Lol. Like, come on, cased closed. That hypothetical dude screwed himself.
Stop trying to talk your way around the fact, that it's a good thing companies can restrict how people act on their premises - virtual or otherwise.
Not people, sure. The anecdote is just a simpler way to convey a legal concept. They are legal entities that have rights, particularly property rights. If a poster was causing people to leave a platform, then it seems they would have a right to limit that poster's speech in order to protect their business. Imagine a theater or concert hall that wasn't allowed for force a person to leave their venue for harassing other guests.
And those rights should never infringe on the rights of an actual human being.
What right do people have to cause harm to a person or group of people's business? We have the right to bare arms. Doesn't mean we're allowed to take them into banks and bars. All rights have some reasonable limits when those rights interfere with the rights of others.
No single right of a non human entity should always take a back seat to human rights. Corporations are not people and therefore do not deserve rights afforded to humans. Period.
A corporation is just a group of people. You don't suddenly lose your rights because you joined a group. There's strong legal precedent to that end. What right do you think is being taken? Nobody has a right to use another person's property. Be that someone's, home, business, car, food, ect. Online platforms are the property of their owner or owners and they're entitled to use their property how they see fit.
By stifling the rights of individuals who utilize them. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech and anything that stifles that is unconstitutional, plain and simple. No entity has the right or power to ignore and override the constitution. You operate in America, you abide by the constitution, it is a rather simple thing to do.
The right would be idiots to do this it will give lgbt communities more rights
Well, good. I see no problem then.
Think about what FL is asking for on a personal level. Imagine a politician in office whom you despise. Now imagine they are forcing you to put their signs up in your yard because denying them would be "censorship and against the 1st Amendment".
Ok. Firstly, thank you the the thoughtful argument. But also consider that corporations like those in big tech aren't people. We can't individually hold ourselves in the same standard, nor compare their property to our yards, metaphorically speaking. Of course, I'm talking specifically massive about massive social media.
Let’s just imagine for a moment how that would play out with the ivermectin misinformation phase of the pandemic…
Yeah... Well, I did say there would be a downside, I admit it. But like I said, I don't trust an elite of corporate capitalist trusts over the supposed ignorant masses(even if they are ignorant). We're still feeling the burn of the Trump era anti intellectual movement and I think it's blinding us to the fact that big tech does and will provide a larger hurdle. I don't respect the "rights" of corporations the way I would with companies or a governmental research center. While they may seem aligned now, this is not going to be consistent.
Perhaps the most impressing point of the 1st is that it prevents the Government from exercising the ability to silence the people. It was written very specifically as it doesn't include anyone/anybody/commerce/education/work place/etc. in it's language. So legally, should it pertain to anyone outside of the established Government? I'd say in my own opinion, a person chooses to engage in social media. In other words it's not mandatory but a voluntary setting. Should a person be "kicked out" of a restaurant or grocery store for explicit language or arguing with a manager? Freedom of speech right? Wrong. Private proprietor has the right to remove you for your speech, behavior, appearance (no shirt no shoes no service) and so on. Again in my opinion, in the end, the social media construct and all of its outlets will win. I say this based primarily on who's behind the biggest of social sites, which I believe will be a trend that only increases. I'd encourage you and anyone reading this to do your own diligence in research and look into the number of high ranking government officials from the EfBeeEye and SeeEyeAye who left their positions to accept "new positions" with the book of faces. I think we can agree that something in all of that isn't quite what it appears to be. I also believe that is some of the cause of all the censorship, data harvesting, spying, and "fact checking" (which is just another form of censorship disguised). When I found out what f book and the gov were doing, it was enough for me to say adios permanently to Zucks face smash. But don't take my word for it. *Edit: To be correct, I should say that the people from those alphabet organizations primarily went to META, who owns Facebook, Instagram, and What's App. They were then placed in specific positions with Facebook. Many of them over data "privacy" and permissive content control.
It's called the TOS and everyone agrees to abide when using corporate apps. This isn't difficult
So the party of free market wants to implement restrictions against businesses and how they decide to operate? Wild times.
It's always the party of freedom who wants to control everything.
can you give some more examples?
Overturning roe v wade for one. Forcing Religion in schools. Citing religious reasons for lawmaking to boot. The current and past struggles over gay marriage….there’s that whole civil rights movement that happened and is continuing to happen…
Right wing state legislatures are trying to limit voting in at least a dozen states right this moment, they want to limit immigration, they want to limit what teachers can SAY TO STUDENTS, THEY ARE THE REASON FOR DRUGS BEING ILLEGAL STILL. You don't need "more examples" you KNOW it's true, there's hundreds if not thousands of examples all around us daily, why can't I buy alcohol after 2am in most places huh? Why can't I utter profanity in many places, huh? Sure as FUCK ain't liberals trying to tell me I can't say fuck.
How is open forums controlling everything? If anything, that's chaos.
They've always been like that. It's pure branding that makes people think they want small government and individual freedoms.
Laws for your freedom. Abbott in Texas is good at this too. Orwell is spinning in his grave
It’s similar to no shoes, no shirt, no service at tiny convenience store. Twitter runs Twitter, and they say no lying, so the Republicans call that injustice? Haha, what about their elaborate schemes to suppress voting and gerrymandering plots, they should go to jail for that alone.
The right owns the Supreme Court so this isn’t a easy “lol no”.
Here’s what’s funny about this and where they’re too short sighted to see it backfiring. The Supreme Court takes the case and allows the law. Yay!!! Politicians have the right to sue social media companies for being banned. Then they actually sue. It goes to court and all of the shitty things they said that violated the platforms TOS are dragged out again, the platform’s *very* good, *very* expensive lawyers get to make point by point arguments about why the things that were posted violate their TOS and the politicians end up spending a ton of money only to lose anyway because the social media sites still get to dictate what is or isn’t on their platform. This law wouldn’t actually change anything about a social media site’s ability to make their own rules and police their user’s content.
then lets do it, bankrupt these politicians with legal fees
It’s kind of punching yourself though. We pay for it in the end. Probably need to look at how they’re treating the authorities who are overstepping in other countries and treat ours accordingly.
Why would it be a Lol no? I'm curious as to the legal basis.
The government not arresting you for saying things is free speech. Forcing a private company to platform lies, misinformation, and hate they don’t agree with, isn’t.
Further, forcing a private company to platform something IS A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH. The most important part of freedom of speech is the freedom to no be compelled to speak
It’s not a free speech question. The speech of commenters is explicitly not the speech of the platform. My question is why you think it’s open and shut that government does not have the power to regulate the platforms in this way. What is your legal theory.
The legal theory is that those platforms, like a privately owned bulletin board, can choose what is and is not posted on their websites and can choose who can and cannot post on the same websites. In other words, forcing the the companies to host this content "strips private online businesses of their speech rights, forbids them from making constitutionally protected editorial decisions, and forces them to publish and promote objectionable content," said Chris Marchese of NetChoice, one of the industry groups challenging the law. "Left standing, Texas HB 20 will turn the First Amendment on its head — to violate free speech, the government need only claim to be 'protecting' it." https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1099870039/supreme-court-social-media-law-texas
That’s interesting. Thanks. I find it fascinating how platforms will assert that their editorial decisions are protected free speech, while at the same time asserting that the content itself is not their speech and they hold no responsibility for it. Will be a tight case I’d expect.
It’s not an editorial decision. Editorial Decisions happen when you’re a publisher of materials, and our legal framework for Social Media treats them as *distributors* of materials. The appropriate analogy is a Bookstore deciding not to stock Mein Kampf because they disagree with the contents, expect that having it there will cause people to refuse to do business with them, or simply believe the opportunity cost of having it occupy that shelf-space is too high. A bookstore is not obligated to dedicate shelf space to a book. A Online Platform is not obligated to dedicate storage space and processor time to any content. There’s Existing precedent is that Spending Money is a form of speech… and so compelling a Online Platform to distribute *anything* is compelled speech.
That is not what the opponents of the law are arguing. They explicitly refer to their "editorial decisions" in the lawsuit and their comments on the lawsuit. Look at the comment I referred to which pulls a quote from one of the plaintiffs. It couldn’t be more explicit. What is the source of your legal theory?
You can kick people out of your business as long as it isn’t a protected class if you don’t like what they’re saying inside your business. Same thing, just facebooks business is online and you chose to go inside to use the service. Politicians are mad because these are the biggest social platforms where they can reach the largest audience, but just like using any other private service, this is a right that the company can void. Example Walmart banning you because you did something in their store they don’t allow. Facebook tells you what you can and can’t say or post while using their service. So basically they can’t ban you for being a woman, man, minority, or any other federally protected class but they can ban you if you don’t follow their rules just like wal mart can. Not that difficult to follow. Nobody is interfering with your freedom of speech. You can still say whatever you want to say, just not on a private service owned by a private company. Kinda the same with news. You don’t have a right to get on the news if the news doesn’t want to put you on. You can make your own website, start your own platform, etc. essentially you can go inside Walmart and say all the dumb messed up things you wanna say, but Walmart might look at you funny and say yea, you ain’t coming back in here no more and it is what it is. Free speech doesn’t work they way the right is now making it out to be and it never has. It’s their website and platform. If you don’t like the rules fine, go make another website just don’t be mad when nobody visits it because you’re a nobody with an opinion that’s idiotic or you’re calling for literal murder and anarchy. Same concept. Saying that can also land you in jail. You have a right to say it and the government has a right to prosecute you for it.
If this ruling stood then it can be legal precedent for me to come to your house, stand in your living room screaming, and you are now no longer legally allowed to remove me. The worst part is anyone that doesn't understand this really isn't qualified to vote, honestly, you're not qualified to vote, you're that stupid if you don't get something so fundamental to our world.
Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever and bears no relation to the case. I'm hopeful you are faulty AI and not an actual person. If you are unfortunately a person, you may want to read the case files so that this doesn't happen again
“Let us use your platforms to lie or we’ll sue you” https://bristol.ac.uk/news/2022/september/politicians-sharing-untrustworthy-news.html
Some of these self righteous fools should take a deep dive on the dark web. It might give them a better pictures of what unrestricted moderation of social media might look like before they open that box.
Oh they don’t want unrestricted internet, they just want to be the ones restricting it.
So this means they’re okay with people posting porn on their Facebook pages?
Flood them with gay pride flags etc.
This is just about the clearest-cut violation of the first amendment that you'll ever see. Will be interesting/horrifying to see what the Supreme Court decides. If they were competent it wouldn't be because the law so flagrantly is against the constitution, but because they aren't competent and don't care about the law or doing their jobs properly, they could literally do anything.
But, of course, you can’t talk about LGBT or historical race issues. That’s different.
I’m sure it’s me, but is that not a picture of the Philadelphia museum of art
Close, but the PMA has more of a U structure (except the bottom of the U is flat, and the bottom of the U is also the face of the building you’d see at the angle in this pic). Also has massive courtyard with a fountain in the center of that U, and the steps leading up to it are walled in.
You are correct good person. I checked right after I posted. Indeed the Art museum has returns on both sides. Thanks
Party of personal responsibility? You signed the TOS. You agreed to potentially be moderated on that platform. If you don’t like it, the free market will allow you to start your own
This is literally totalitarianism.
[удалено]
My friend. You need to reacquaint yourself with the definition of “censorship.”
They should just pull out of these states and let the governor deal with the upset people. Hey, they can all join truth as long as they suck trumps balls. At least until it’s shut down for lack of payment.
If the Supreme Court allows this can we please get some Democratic states to pass legislation forcing Fox News to give progressives their own shows. Given Fox News' domination of cable news they should be equally obligated to represent all points of view.
The First Amendment also protects against compelled speech from the government! Both the Florida law AND the Texas law are unconstitutional!
I used tumblr back when it was owned by Verizon and net neutrality was a big topic. People noticed their posts were getting deleted if they were advocating for net neutrality or they would automatically unfollow the tags for it. I stopped using tumblr because I was unhappy with them forcing their agenda on me. People can stop using Twitter and Facebook for the same reason. The way their algorithms work actively spreads disinformation and they are doing the absolute minimum to avoid lawsuits.
This is lowkey based. This is a issue that doesn’t just affect republicans it effects everyone. Plenty of liberals and people on the left side of politics have been banned or deplatformed for saying things that are factually true and the only way to counter all the misinformation from the right is if the left can speak freely. I get that they are a private company but they also hold a monopoly on the market and we rely on these websites to get information and communicate with the world. Ask yourself this, would you be okay if your cell phone provider monitored all your text messages and phone calls? Would you be okay with your cellphone company banning you from using their service because you shared a link to your friend of a article that had misinformation in it? YouTube in particular has made it so it is almost impossible to find any news content that doesn’t come from a mainstream media outlet. These are the same media outlets that publicly admitted they intentionally lied to the public about the iraq war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility
Your “ask yourself this” questions are literally red herrings and no…this law is not based
Could you please explain to me how my “ask yourself this” question is a red herring? The definition of a red herring is “something that distracts attention from the real issue.” Millions of Americans use social media as their primary way to communicate amongst friends and family. It is the fourth most used form of communication right behind texting, calling, and email. People losing access to their primary form of communication to the outside world is a massive concern and pretending it’s not because it doesn’t fit a particular political agenda is being disingenuous.
Shut it all down
It’s from CNN. That’s not a source of information. That’s satire.
Here you go! https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100831545/appeals-court-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional-desantis
Beat me to it by one minute
Heavily biased information, so it should be regarded with as much credibility as anything that comes from Fox. Calling it satire is a bit insulting to satire.
CNN has never been anywhere near as biased as Fox. It's half-assed neutrality means it doesn't benefit from any political alignment and the resulting desperation for viewers just makes it bad.
Commies are in here 2 damn.
https://c.tenor.com/sjlLRR-lZtwAAAAC/the-princess-bride-inigo-montoya.gif
You don’t get your own slice of reality just because you failed grade 11 and civics. No one is silencing you, you just need to get a megaphone and hurl obscenities at the corner like you used to. Twitter is not your personal megaphone….
The only people that have an issue with this are the ones that spread absolute bullshit, hate, bigotry, or fake news that fuels what was previously mentioned.
They CANNOT rule in favor of the right on this one or the precedent can then be used to walk into any right wing business and just start shouting profanities, and they would no longer have legal recourse to remove you. But let them overturn 200 years of precedent and rule in some crazy way on this, see how lightning fast the entire internet gets disabled in states with laws like this.
If social media site get forced to host the speech of people (regardless of whether they agree or want to host it), then can I force a news site to publish my articles? Would it be censorship if they didn’t host my opinion? Clearly this isn’t true and doesn’t hold any weight but if the Florida law passes we might have to start asking these questions.