Tech Groups Ask Supreme Court To Review Texas Social Media Law 115
Trade groups that represent Meta and Alphabet's Google said they asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a Texas law that would sharply restrict the editorial discretion of social media companies. From a report: The appeal by NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association contends the Texas law violates the First Amendment by forcing social media companies to disseminate what they see as harmful speech and putting platforms at risk of being overrun by spam and bullying. The law "would wreak havoc by requiring transformational change to websites' operations," the groups argued. The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in September but left the measure on hold to allow time for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Texas law bars social media platforms with more than 50 million users from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and other Republicans say the law is needed to protect conservative voices from being silenced. The appeal adds a new layer to a Supreme Court term that could reshape the legal rules for online content. The justices are already considering opening social media companies to lawsuits over the targeted recommendations they make to users.
The Texas law bars social media platforms with more than 50 million users from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and other Republicans say the law is needed to protect conservative voices from being silenced. The appeal adds a new layer to a Supreme Court term that could reshape the legal rules for online content. The justices are already considering opening social media companies to lawsuits over the targeted recommendations they make to users.
Re: Ok, but then you're responsible for it all. (Score:3)
We have hundreds of years of law that apply to news papers, use that for anything they promote manually or algorithmically.
By all means extend protection like section 230 if you are genuinely running a simple forum, article comments or the original Facebook, which was actually valuable, where you publish your simple algorithm and apply it fairly.
You already know why that is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
You also know your side, the right wing, are they only ones with the billionaire cash to survive the shit storm that striking down S230 would bring.
This isn't about what's right or wrong. This is about control. Power. Like the fascists of old you'll say anything and do anything for the stuff. As soon as you're in charge you'll crack down on your opponents, just like Musk is doing [cnn.com] right now. [theverge.com].
The right wing does not believe in free speech. Never have, never will. But they will always borrow their opponents rhetoric to use it against them. Like how the Nazis claimed to be socialists up until they were in power. Always remember that.
Re:You already know why that is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I do believe the current legal regime in the USA is out of date, and section 230 is providing legal protection for companies that are profiting from harming their users. I believe it should be amended to limit its scope to only cover its original cases: protecting companies which allow and moderate user comments on BBS/forums, etc. I believe section 230 should deliberately exclude algorithmically chosen (published) items that are shown to users who are not directly searching or looking for them. I believe that the tech companies' algorithms have selected and are deliberately selecting harmful content to show to users to drive their engagement with the platform and therefore user time on the platform, which translates to advertising profit for the company. I believe that the companies should bear the traditional burden of all news papers, magazines or books do for the items they publish, algorithm or not.
To support my case I argue that most liberal societies have normally taken the view that publishers (i.e. those who select what they publish) can cause and have caused harm due to their actions, and subsequently created legal protections to limit those harms. Those laws are pretty settled and well understood - obviously imperfect, but what law is perfect?
When forums, BBS, early social media came about those laws were clearly causing unintended harms, and section 230 was created, which seems a decent solution to me, especially as individual users accounted for most of the content, and pretty deterministic algorithms or user searches controlled how often they were seen, etc.
However, we now have algorithms selecting and publishing articles to users that they have not directly searched for on most social media platforms. I believe the metrics baked into the algorithms by their creators favor engagement at any price, and have harmed and continue to harm individuals and societies.
An example is the research on Facebook showing that 689,000 times over two months up to 73% of COVID misinformation articles came from 12 accounts due to the algorithms love of "engagement" (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21011322/disinfo-dozen.pdf). A recent one on TikTok showed fake teen accounts searching for body image or mental health were shown pro-self harm (i.e. dangerous dieting) or pro-suicide content within several minutes of simulated use (https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CCDH-Deadly-by-Design_120922.pdf, note the examples of the actual content in here is likely disturbing, I certainly found them so - I advise caution). There are plenty of other researched sources with similar findings covering most platforms.
In summary, I believe that section 230 provides much too much protection for the social media companies in the case when their algorithms are choosing the content to be shown to someone who is not directly searching for that information. My suggested (imperfect solution) which seems to fit the situation best is to apply existing law that governs a publisher (one who selects the item to be broadcast), instead of the blanket protections of 230.
Re: You already know why that is wrong (Score:2)
I sure don't believe you. Also you seem rather ignorant of what an algorithm is for a Slashdot user. How, precisely do you think a forum would display information on its main page? By most recent, or by subject matter, or perhaps special types of posts like user polls would be broken out into their own section? It's difficult to see how you could have a dynamic website without algorithms. I guess if it just displayed a core dump or something?
In any case, the equivalent behavior is common in other media ("Ou
Re: You already know why that is wrong (Score:2)
"Misinformation" you mean like the fact that higher Vitamin D levels lowered the mortality rate of C19 because D governs the inflammatory response and C19's primary cause of harm is inflammation. Or maybe that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission. Or maybe that Fauci was lying about the lab leak theory being an actual concern in public while acknowledging it behind the scenes. All of which were labeled "misinformation" yet turned out to be true.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm pretty sure there was a recent article where you called NPR right-wing [slashdot.org]. At first I thought it was
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's just your excuse (Score:2)
You're bringing up algos because it's annoying, obtuse and complex so the feel bad. You're relying on the negative emotional connotations to get people on your side. Feels not Reals, and a Right wing talking point.
This is not an argument you can win. That's because you're wrong. And in a forum setting like this full of tech nerds everybody knows better. They're not falling for your attempt to use emotions over reason an
Re: (Score:2)
to take away S230. S230 covers modding by computer and by person and you know it.
I never suggested getting rid of S230.
You're bringing up algos because it's annoying, obtuse and complex so the feel bad. You're relying on the negative emotional connotations to get people on your side. Feels not Reals, and a Right wing talking point.
They brought up algorithms, not me. You spewed BS about how right wing they were in response to it. I called you on your BS. You're spewing more "right winger" BS now, so this seems like a pattern for you.
This is not an argument you can win.
This isn't an argument at all. You're acting like a child, and nothing more.
That's because you're wrong.
I didn't say anything to be right or wrong about.
And in a forum setting like this full of tech nerds everybody knows better. They're not falling for your attempt to use emotions over reason and logic. Take that stuff back to 4chan whence it came. Be gone with ye!
And yet more "right winger" BS. I tried to be civil and explain where your opinion might have veered off course. It's very clear from your respo
Re:Ok, but then you're responsible for it all. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the "we are publishers and can't be required to publish anything we don't want to publish" argument. It's valid, for publishers. You can't make the newspaper print your letter to the editor, and you can't force Simon & Schuster to take an interest in your latest manuscript.
If a tech company wants to argue that they are a publisher, that's all well and good, but then they should be taken at their word and treated as a publisher. That means they'd be legally responsible for every single thing they publish: every article, every user comment, everything. If anything on their site is libel or fraud or a copyright violation or in any other way legally actionable, a company that has used the "we are a publisher" argument in court should NOT be allowed to turn around and pretend to be a common carrier (like a phone company or ISP) next week and thus not be responsible for the content. Nothing doing. If you're a publisher, you're directly responsible for everything you publish.
So they're either liable for everything or nothing?
I don't see that being a workable system. Making the company liable for statements by its users obviously kills social media, but removing their ability to moderate makes the platforms completely unusable.
I think social media companies are something in-between, they need to be able to curate and manage the communities they try to build without being liable for everything that happens there. A better metaphor might be that they're providing a venue, they're generally not responsible for things people do inside, but they do have the ability to control their space.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's the downside?
Why should a venue be immune to lawsuits for things people do inside?
Re:Ok, but then you're responsible for it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
And what's the downside?
Slashdot and similar sites could be forced to close down?
It's hilarious seeing people post how Section 230 could be revoked on sites that need Section 230 to operate.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're afraid a court might find they didn't do enough to prevent people from being harmed by their web site and then fine them into bankruptcy?
Maybe we should stop expecting social media to be free. You know what they say, if you're not paying for it, you're the product!
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a venue be immune to lawsuits for things people do inside?
Immune, no. But I think you have to show some negligence on the part of the venue for them to be liable. For instance, if two people get in a fight and someone is injured you're probably in the clear. But if you let folks operate an informal fight club you might absorb some responsibility if things get out of hand.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's the downside?
Why should a venue be immune to lawsuits for things people do inside?
So if I go to a concert and my wallet with $300 in it gets stolen, I should be pressing charges against the venue, even if the thief is found to just have been another patron of the venue?
Re: (Score:2)
I think your case against the venue would be a civil matter, not a criminal one.
Re: Ok, but then you're responsible for it all. (Score:2)
Why should a venue be immune to lawsuits for things people do inside?
When it comes to speech, they typically are. Imagine a pleasant coffeehouse with comfortable seating and a fireplace on a winter's day -- many patrons will engage in conversation with each other. So long as they're fairly quiet and well-mannered, they can talk about anything and the venue isn't going to interfere or be held responsible. But when some asshole stands up and screams about how bigoted they are against minorities, the staff is well within their rights to kick them out even though screaming and t
Re: (Score:2)
So they're either liable for everything or nothing?
I don't see that being a workable system. Making the company liable for statements by its users obviously kills social media,
It is fantastically, 100% workable. I promise you Emma of "Emma's Knitting Forum" fame has no problem at fully moderating her website. But then, she is also probably interested in enjoying community and productive discussion with fellow knitters, not selling their private data to sleazy advertising companies for maximum profit and manipulating their anxieties to drive engagement.
There is nothing particularly unscaleable about the moderation problem. The number of moderators you need scales proportionally wi
Re:Ok, but then you're responsible for it all. (Score:4, Interesting)
You haven't thought about this for even a second have you? Thankfully, people much smarter than you have. That's what section 230 is all about and it's allowed the internet as we know it to flourish.
What you're proposing would instantly destroy the internet as we know it. When you don't do any moderation, you almost exclusively get the worst the world has to offer. Try an unmoderated TOR search engine sometime and you'll find out. It's nothing but illegal enterprise, csam, and crypto scams. Mostly csam. It doesn't even matter what you search for. It's more than a little disturbing.
Didn't you ever wonder why all those so-called "free speech" platforms have more draconian moderation than mainstream platforms they like to pretend are suppressing their voice? It wasn't just to stop the flood of csam, it's that the other platforms were oppressing them, it's that it didn't protect them from criticism. Their lies would get quickly called out, and they really hated that. They needed a safe space.
It was never about "free speech" to these liars. Look at Twitter under Musk. In less than two weeks, he started banning anyone and everyone he doesn't like, like a petty sysop on second-rate BBS, regardless of the nature of their posts. His childish antics are tanking his other businesses as well -- he's already lost his spot as the richest man in the world and things aren't looking good for him. Pathetic.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ok, but then you're responsible for it all. (Score:2)
Retweeting a stalker account that bragged about using private information to do so is decidedly not made up.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one way to interpret things...
Except congress passed a federal law that explicitly protected their right to censor while not being liable for anything that they do not censor.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
Re: Ok, but then you're responsible for it all. (Score:2)
Well, unfortunately for your inflated sense of importance, you don't get to decide that one. Congress decided it years ago: A website can exercise the discretion of a publisher and remove third party content entirely arbitrarily but not be held liable for what's left online, as though it were a publisher.
And it's a good thing, too, because the alternatives are worse: either sites would have no user generated content, such as your less-than-worthless post, and would basically be no more interesting than maga
Re: orly? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am open to discuss whether we should regulate them to be fair or more transparent about what they are doing, but that is definitely not a 1st amendment issue.
To be honest I think the root of the problem might be this weird idea that a company is an individual and entitled to any protection in the Constitution. I genuinely feel companies and people are different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point: Should government be telling businesses their subscribers have more rights than them? Government is already demanding businesses provide some level of protetion to everyone: That's not possible when they don't have the power to isolate or punish malfeasance.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment constrains the government, not corporations, so tech censorship can never violate the first amendment. However, Texas passed this law, which regulates a commercial activity in the social media space. The first amendment issue here is whether the companies can claim this law violates their first amendment protection. I read the 5th circuit opinion and I found their argument pretty persuasive that the typical social media company does not participate in the content creation process enough
Re: orly? (Score:2)
The 5th Circuit isn't known for producing well reasoned opinions, so don't get too impressed. Frankly, I was amazed that the 11th Circuit (just as bad if not worse) got it right in ruling that the similar law out of Florida was unconstitutional.
the typical social media company does not participate in the content creation process enough to qualify for first amendment protect[ion]
Freedom of speech encompasses distribution as well. Imagine if it didn't -- the government could say that you have the right to write a book but no publisher has the right to print copies, no distributor has the right to ship them, and no bookstore has the right to s
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who claims that tech company censorship violates the first amendment is clearly misinformed or lying.
I am open to discuss whether we should regulate them to be fair or more transparent about what they are doing, but that is definitely not a 1st amendment issue.
To be honest I think the root of the problem might be this weird idea that a company is an individual and entitled to any protection in the Constitution. I genuinely feel companies and people are different things.
Yep, how a private company chooses to moderate, is up to that company. I say the same about post-Musk Twitter, he can run it how he sees fit even if how he sees fit is to run it like it's operated for the pleasure of an extremely thin skinned, petulant manchild. His gaff, his rules.
Of course this does not prevent others from criticising him or withdrawing their support over his actions. Freedom does not mean "I can do what I want with no consequences", that's anarchy. As expected, Musk has been called ou
Re: (Score:1)
> I genuinely feel companies and people are different things.
GOP and SCOTUS are trying to change that, shoring up the doctrine of "corporate personhood".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, as a private company social media sites have the freedom, under the first amendment, to promote free speech. This is sacrosanct. Like when the Wall Street Journal published Trumpâ(TM)s argument that the election was stolen.
The issue here
Re: orly? (Score:2)
Probably has something to do with the fact that their moderation decisions were regularly done at the behest of congressmembers and the fbi.
What they really want... (Score:1, Troll)
So-called "conservatives" don't actually care about free speech. They don't even understand it.
They want speech to come without any negative consequences. They also want to force private companies to platforms their speech.
That's what this stupid Texas law is all about: They're trying to use the force of government to compel speech. It's disgusting.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
No, and I say this as someone who almost always votes D, but it's gotten way over the top with the left's "censorship" (Yah yah government only blah blah, there are other forms of censorship besides legally-defined) of everything they disagree with. Can't really discuss things most places without getting zapped. I love to play the devil's advocate game, as I find that gives a depth to a surface-only discussion. As much as I generically hate Rs, they have a point on this one.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I say this as someone who almost always votes D
You're a liar. We can tell form all of the right-wing bullshit you just posted.
the left's "censorship"
Get real. That isn't censorship, that's the free market at work. The "left" uses the power of speech and the power of the free market to fairly compete in the marketplace of ideas.
The right, in contrast, is trying to use the force of government to either suppress or compel any speech they don't like.
One of those is a problem. They other is not.
Re: (Score:3)
And I run across quite a few conservatives who are all for shutting up people they disagree with. More of the same old thinking that rights are for us but not for you. The same person, almost on the same day, is arguing for freedom of religion but then turns around and complains about a mosque saying "they shouldn't allow that." The person just did not see the hypocrisy there. Also, sharia law bad but banning birth control is good. And ban the books, guilty books, innocent books, just ban them all and le
Re: (Score:1)
A fiscal conservative would spend millions of dollars if it annoyed a liberal for a few minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty obvious that Twitter didn't do this
Oh? Then I suppose you can show us some actual evidence to support that rather bold claim? It sounds like complete bullshit to me.
I'm of the opinion that it's best to let it all through and let individuals curate what they want to see, but can understand and respect a private company that wants to set its own bounds.
That's absurd. Every site that has tried that has been almost instantly filled with scams and kiddie porn. You know this. Is that what want?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we've seen from the twitter "files" coming out, that the federal government DID influence what these private companies downgraded or even had removed.
And how if any of that is true related to the fact that the state of Texas is forcing private companies to do something they do not want to do? I can influence my neighbor not to play loud music during the day because I sleep during the day if am a shift worker. It is another thing to get my town to enact a statute where he cannot play loud music during the day. Only in my neighborhood. Only for the hours I sleep during the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point to which "Twitter files" messages show federal government influence? Because my understanding is that Tabibi didn't publish any of the emails from the Trump admin or campaign-even though Twitter took down material at their request (and there is at least a chance that this is government coercion).
If you're talking about the Biden campaign requesting that dick picks to be taken down: the Biden campaign is not the government and neither of the involved Bidens held public office at the time. So I
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we've seen from the twitter "files" coming out, that the federal government DID influence what these private companies downgraded or even had removed.
You mean the Biden campaign (which wasn't the government last time I checked) asked twitter to follow their revenge porn policy and remove Hunter Biden's dick pics? What is it with republicans and Hunter Biden's dick?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Free speech shouldn't have ANY negative consequences
What the actual fuck?
Re: (Score:1)
Free speech shouldn't have ANY negative consequences.
Sorry, what? I don't think you have any idea what that means. That is beyond insane.
Compel speech? Lol.
That is exactly what they're advocating for here. They've passed more than one law that compels speech. That's typical of those dictators you mentioned earlier. Pay attention.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
Ignoring the obvious contradiction for the moment, do you know what the word "compel" means?
No one is saying zero moderation.
That is exactly what several people in this thread are advocating. Either publish all user content without any moderation and be a common carrier or be a
Tech companies should not be deciding (Score:2, Insightful)
Tech companies should not be deciding what can and can't be said. Yes, horrible things will be said. No one has the right to not be offended. Bad things can always be shot down with facts and even when there are idiots that can't be reasoned with, the cost of censorship is too high... eventually it will be something that matters to you that gets shot down and silenced. The only things that should be silenced without question are threats of direct harm. I was on a subreddit the other day on a thread that was
Re: (Score:2)
This! Sorry I'm out of mod points today! Silencing leads to bubbles which leads to being totally out of touch with reality.
But there are too many a-holes (Score:2)
We've found out the hard way that roughly 5% of the population are highly susceptible to conspiracies and hate speech so much that they harass and/or physically attack others to "protect society from evil-doers".
Do you want to force larger social media companies to carry material that will trigger that 5% into doing something horrible to someone else? I wouldn't want that on my head as a site owner.
Yeah, they should (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about power with you guys. Having it and yielding it. There's no hypocrisy with you because every thought and action is about imposing your personal beliefs on other people. Go back and read 1984. That was a central theme. It's why Freedom is Slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well head off the "Twitter is the new town square" argument too. Twitter is actually one of the smaller networks. Tiny compared to Facebook.
Facebook is dominated by the far right already, so they don't care about it. The Facebook demographic is older and they want the youth on Twitter to be forced to read their stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Tech companies are not charities, they're running a business which requires a source of income to stay solvent. For social media companies, that income comes primarily from advertising and the companies producing those ads spend insane amounts of money to make sure that the image they are curating of their company is presented in a very specific manner.
And that's the rub when the virtually sole source of in
Re: (Score:2)
Musk is talking about making Twitter a subscription platform, but also seems to be doing good best to make sure nobody except the far right would want to pay for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Tech companies should not be deciding what can and can't be said. Yes, horrible things will be said. No one has the right to not be offended. Bad things can always be shot down with facts and even when there are idiots that can't be reasoned with, the cost of censorship is too high... eventually it will be something that matters to you that gets shot down and silenced.
Then why are you on /.? What's moderation but another form of censorship? One that's driven by politics much more than anything on Facebook or Twitter (well, historically at least).
In fact, what's the current user count here? I see from one of the UID's here there's at least 10m accounts but we're probably well short of the 50m mark so we don't have to worry that /. will be forced to turn off moderation...
Note, there's good reasons why they set the mark at 50m. If you lowered it to something like 50 users y
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to browser a -1 so I see everything. I try to use my mod points to boost well thought out posts or if they are just funny. The mod system is also kind of like a little popularity contest as a poster.
Sometimes you post and you could not care less and you even smile at the troll mod you got. Other times it can be a little game to see if your post will get a +5 or not. A lot of times it's getting your post early in the thread.
It's all in the fun and I would hate it if they ever changed that. Seeing ever
Re: (Score:2)
The right-wing Red Scare/NWO/CFR/Arkancide/Crisis Actor/Jade Helm/Plandemic/Qanon/My Pillow insanity has been a key component of the GOP electorate for literally longer than I have been alive. It isn't social media censorship that drove them crazy.
You have made common cause with a bunch of nut and you probably have to listen to them as part of your coalition. But the rest of society has the right to separate signal from noise.
In some forums saying unpopular things means downmodding (slashdot) and in others,
Re: (Score:2)
In some forums saying unpopular things means downmodding (slashdot) and in others, the banhammer (Truth, Gab, Parler, Twitter) . That is part of the freedom of association protected by the First Amendment. Government officials in Texas should try reading it.
Government officials in Texas think being able to read is a liberal plot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tech companies should not be deciding what can and can't be said.
So the solution is for the government to tell the tech companies what speech they are allowed? Infringe the speech of another to mandate yours. Makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tech companies should not be deciding (Score:2)
The internet runs on advertising and advertisers have the right to pick and choose who they do business with. They can leave if your users attempt to overthrow a government, they can leave if video surfaces of Zuck picking his nose.
This is the reality that has to be dealt with. I am expecting someone to unironically suggest an anti-boycotting law so they can preserve their freedom to post that Heinz 57 enemas protect you from COVID.
Re: (Score:2)
Tech companies should not be deciding what can and can't be said.
Why do only Tech companies not deserve to be able to make such decisions? The Supreme Court granted corporations the right to make their views known in Citizens United.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do only Tech companies not deserve to be able to make such decisions? The Supreme Court granted corporations the right to make their views known in Citizens United.
They will have to rationalize like crazy to muzzle tech companies freedom of speech without overturning Citizens United. Will be both funny and sad to watch in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work very well because bad things travel 6 times faster than facts. [pbs.org] So facts need some kind of help (like a golf handicap) in order to play on a level playing field with misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad things can always be shot down with facts
You'd like to think so. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of people with strong opinions who seem to think their opinions are facts. Some of that sort of thing results from poor critical thinking skills, like the folks who see a correlation that reinforces their bias as confirmation. Some of it stems from a desire to be part of a group, as in "all my friends believe this, so it must be true". Some of it results from living in echo chambers, where groupthink solidifies into incontrovertible truth. And lo
Re: (Score:2)
Tech companies should not be deciding what can and can't be said.
And they do not. Except when you say it on their platform.
Just as you get to decide who comes to your home and says things there. You can tell them to STFU and GTFO. One person's rights end where the next person's rights begin.
Also there is this law, you may have missed it -it was written in 1996, called the Communications Decency Act. It specifically says that they can censor things on their platforms if they choose to.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Get a web site. Say anything you want. Don't force other people to carry your speech (and pay the bill for it) when you can just do it yourself on your own site as an independent citizen that's not in a co-dependent relationship with someone else's social media site. Bobby's N64 Golden Eye forum shouldn't have to carry someone's rant about "The Jews" or whatever if it doesn't want to, nor should any other collection of folks that put together a company that grows larger than Bobby's N64 Golden Eye forums.
Re: Tech companies should not be deciding (Score:2)
Tech companies should not be deciding what can and can't be said
Congratulations! They're not. They are merely deciding whether they will allow their privately owned resources to be used for particular speech. You can still say whatever you want to say, just possibly without their help and thus not on their site.
Re:Tech companies should not be deciding (Score:4, Interesting)
> In my experience, conservatives (one of which I am not, generally) tend to be much more socially accepting of different beliefs - at least online.
I find the opposite. Lefties tend to believe in logic and evidence, while the right often learn to trust their gut "because they pray more". Thus, it's brains vs. guts. You can't reason with guts. Critical thinking skills are downplayed because the "cable to God" is more important. I grew up in an evangelical family. (There are exceptions, but I'm stating typical.)
It could be that the lefties you encountered in that forum where there out of anger about guns while the righties just wanted to talk guns and not politics. The lefties maybe intentionally came there to yell and vent, not talk about guns themselves. In other words, there may have been situational filtering.
Re: (Score:2)
In today's environments, I have seen both sides readily attempt to silence the other. Shit nearly every single reddit community that is either left leaning or right leaning will immediately ban you if you argue anything for the other side. Both sides are equally guilty, just have different topics that elicit the silencing. All of them are wrong for doing it.
Re: (Score:1)
> nearly every single reddit community that is either left leaning or right leaning will immediately ban you if you argue anything for the other side.
I've found the same thing. I found no general politics sub-reddit that's not filtered by biased moderators. (Except topics that have like 4 subscribers.)
Re: (Score:1)
My story was from 2005 - before "social media".
Yes, things are definitely a bit escalated now that large social media sites have weaponized political dominance, and conservatives have realized that there is no mutual appreciation for free speech.
Re: (Score:1)
Where have you seen that? That seems like a pretty extreme stereotype (and closer to the opposite of my experience with eg. Twitter).
Sure, you're not going to get insightful diner conversation in BFN, Nebraska. On the whole of everything, most people are simply idiots who follow narratives, they're not able to have thoughts independent of their in-group. That's as true in real life in Berkeley and San Francisco as it is in Omaha and Dallas.
Yes, there's a degree of situational filtering at play with the for
Funny fact about guns & the right wing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> In my experience, conservatives (one of which I am not, generally) tend to be much more socially accepting of different beliefs - at least online.
I find the opposite. Lefties tend to believe in logic and evidence, while the right often learn to trust their gut "because they pray more". Thus, it's brains vs. guts. You can't reason with guts.
So is this conclusion of your based on evidence, then, or trusting your gut?
"According to a new poll from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, self-described liberals are twice as likely than self-described conservatives to block material on social networking websites that they find politically disagreeable.
Thirty-six percent of social media users said they have blocked, “unfriended” or hidden someone because of politics, but left-leaning participants were far more likely to have taken that action to express disagreement about a friend’s political views.
“Liberals are the most likely to have taken steps to block, unfriend, or hide” disagreeable political messages, Pew concluded. “In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS [social networking sites] because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.”
-- Study: Liberals more likely to block social-media friends over political differences [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is Liberals have a stronger moral backbone than conservatives?
Re:Tech companies should not be deciding (Score:4, Interesting)
In my experience, conservatives (one of which I am not, generally) tend to be much more socially accepting of different beliefs - at least online.
Unless you're gay. Then your own party won't even allow you to attend their state convention. https://www.dallasnews.com/new... [dallasnews.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Ouch. That's horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, conservatives (one of which I am not, generally) tend to be much more socially accepting of different beliefs - at least online.
Unless you're gay. Then your own party won't even allow you to attend their state convention. https://www.dallasnews.com/new... [dallasnews.com]
Clarence Thomas has openly mused the sexual orientation is not a protected class under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He will have to really pretzel himself to think that political party affiliation somehow is. Not saying he won't try though.
Re: (Score:2)
In this country, it's the right that posts provably false narratives - Ivermectin, anyone? - and you can talk until you're blue in the face, but it won't change their whiny, crybaby position one bit. That's why Texas filed this law in the first place: Because they saw their "commentary" was going to be edited out for the BS it was. Truth doesn't need artificial laws to support it.
Nice (Score:1)
Musk = BS (Score:2)
> After learning what was going on at Twitter, I think I don't trust the private sector any more
Musk spins for drama and ratings. He won't show the press the context of cherry-picked quotes, for example. Context matters. He's a proven troll, per Paul Pelosi attack [cbsnews.com], among other statements he's made. Don't listen to proven trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Get your own web site and say whatever you want there. It's like $0-$5 a month. Bam! You've then decided you have a voice on the internet and aren't trapped in a co-dependent relationship with a social media company where you want them to carry your speech (and pay the cost to do so), because of a sense of learned helplessness. You have the power to get your own website that is accessible by any web browser in the free world, an unimaginably huge path to speaking to billions of people that those of us born
Fun fact (Score:2)
It's a good thing nothing bad ever happens when gov't officials make lists of minorities they have repeatedly expressed dislike of.
Seriously, if you're LGBTQ+ in Texas get out if you can, and buy guns if you can't.
And if you're not LGBTQ+, you're next. Dictators always eventually go ape shit and start killing people. Just like Putin.
Re: (Score:1)
Its interesting how little difference there is between Sharia law and Texas law.
"We reserve the right to refuse service..." (Score:5, Insightful)
I am speaking as the owner of one or more websites that have a social media aspect...
As the owner, I want to be able to put that same sign on my "front door" as the local coffee shop. Anyone can come in and and create a profile, but if their words or their actions are malicious, then I should have the right to remove them from my service. As stated in this article from findlaw.com{1}:
"[...]It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to [refuse service].
You can usually refuse service in the following situations:
* When a customer is not properly dressed
* When a customer has been, or is being, disruptive
* When a customer harasses your employees or other customers
* When there are safety concerns
* When you know someone can't, or won't, pay
* When a customer is intoxicated or high
* When you need to protect another customer's privacy"
So if someone creates a profile and then starts spouting hate speech, the administration of the website should have the right to kick them off the site, or at the very least, silence them so they do not disturb all of our other customers.
This same philosophy can even work on sites like Facebook. If you want to talk about what a proud boy you are and that you are a true American for not getting a shot, then go for it.. On your own forum, on your own page. Not on my Dungeons and Dragons page. And Facebook needs to supply the tools so I do not need to see those posts. Don't "recommend" them, don't suggest "You might know" or "Other people you follow listen to this".{2} And in turn, if I go on those pages and talk crap about the things they believe, they have every right to ban me from those pages.
Freedom of speech only says that the government cannot stifle what someone says. It does not hold water for private business, and it doesn't mean I have to listen/pay attention/believe what you say. Keep your soap box, but take it somewhere else.
1. https://www.findlaw.com/legalb... [findlaw.com]
2. Never going to happen. Can't even get Facebook to stop offering to post "Memories" of my dog that passed away. Heartache every time they pop up.
Re: (Score:2)
I am speaking as the owner of one or more websites that have a social media aspect...
As the owner, I want to be able to put that same sign on my "front door" as the local coffee shop. Anyone can come in and and create a profile, but if their words or their actions are malicious, then I should have the right to remove them from my service. As stated in this article from findlaw.com{1}:
"[...]It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to [refuse service].
You can usually refuse service in the following situations:
* When a customer is not properly dressed
* When a customer has been, or is being, disruptive
* When a customer harasses your employees or other customers
* When there are safety concerns
* When you know someone can't, or won't, pay
* When a customer is intoxicated or high
* When you need to protect another customer's privacy"
So if someone creates a profile and then starts spouting hate speech, the administration of the website should have the right to kick them off the site, or at the very least, silence them so they do not disturb all of our other customers.
This same philosophy can even work on sites like Facebook. If you want to talk about what a proud boy you are and that you are a true American for not getting a shot, then go for it.. On your own forum, on your own page. Not on my Dungeons and Dragons page. And Facebook needs to supply the tools so I do not need to see those posts. Don't "recommend" them, don't suggest "You might know" or "Other people you follow listen to this".{2} And in turn, if I go on those pages and talk crap about the things they believe, they have every right to ban me from those pages.
Freedom of speech only says that the government cannot stifle what someone says. It does not hold water for private business, and it doesn't mean I have to listen/pay attention/believe what you say. Keep your soap box, but take it somewhere else.
1. https://www.findlaw.com/legalb... [findlaw.com]
2. Never going to happen. Can't even get Facebook to stop offering to post "Memories" of my dog that passed away. Heartache every time they pop up.
In the UK, unless you're an essential service or in another way, "in the public interest" you can refuse service for any reason. A sporting goods store or restaurant could ban me for anything, however a supermarket or airline would have to get that court enforced as they're essential services.
A few years back a UK (Northern Ireland based) baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding... The couple sued and the court ruled on the side of the baker because they shouldn't be forced to do something they co
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech only says that the government cannot stifle what someone says
Don't confuse "Freedom of speech" with "the first amendment." They are related, but not identical, concepts and you just confused them.
So "big government" is a conservative ideal now? (Score:2)
Whatever your political leaning - progressive, conservative, or otherwise - I can respect that. But if you lie about the reasons for the positions you take, your very ideals...
Then there's no position to respect, because nobody knows what it is.
It's OK when conservatives are banned (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a double standard. Thi situation was anticipated, that websites hosting user contributed content can not be one or the other, because it would make most websites impossible to operate (like Slashdot for starters, site would cease to exist under the "publisher or carrier" setup you are suggesting). This is why section Section 230 of the CDA was created, they are neither, and fall completely outside the legal structure you are suggesting.
So no, no double standard, they are explicitly given this status. If