Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#21

Post by Barrin92 »

The fact aside as others have pointed out that this basically a reversal of what free speech means, the other thing is, since when is an institution, merely because it has public character, required to tolerate all political viewpoints?

Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism.

It's a very weird, sort of "in your face"-ism. Freedom of assembly means that said assembly can deny people entry or be exclusionary. That's just how a pluralistic society works. Also it's a very non-conservative idea, a sort of political gender quota

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#22

Post by iammisc »

As a conservative, I'm against this law as it is government overreach.

Instead, Texas should tax Facebook several millions of dollars for all Texas residents who are on Facebook (and all social media with more than X subscribers).

The law should be written as a measure for the public health and should cite numerous studies pointing out the toxic effect of social media.

The end goal should be to get Texans off social media and to end facebooks monopoly. No one needs social media. It is toxic. It should be treated like tobacco is -- a disgusting habit some engage in.

But that would require the republican party to actually be effective and bold and do what it's voters want.

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#23

Post by dimator »

iammisc wrote: post #22

As a conservative, I'm against this law as it is government overreach. Instead, Texas should tax Facebook several millions of dollars for all Texas residents who are on Facebook (and all social media with more than X subscribers). The law should be written as a measure for the public health and should cite numerous studies pointing out the toxic effect of social media. The end goal should be to get Texans off social…

I'm progressive, and I would completely be behind this policy. Unfortunately, both parties need campaign funds, and so they'll both concede to social media lobbyists.

Until we solve campaign finance reform, no progress will be made on even the most agreeable of policy positions, as long as there are deep pockets opposed.

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#24

Post by dudydyevr »

Barrin92 wrote: post #21

The fact aside as others have pointed out that this basically a reversal of what free speech means, the other thing is, since when is an institution, merely because it has public character, required to tolerate all political viewpoints? Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism. It's a…

Boohoo, companies worth billions of dollars and workers worth millions of dollars might have to support viewpoints contrary to their own. What a loss for the common man to have enforced neutrality.

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#26

Post by Aerroon »

>The new law states social media platforms with more than 50 million users cannot ban people based on their political viewpoints.

With an exemption that large this doesn't seem too unreasonable. We don't let the phone company ban you for political speech in their platform (the phone call), do we?

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#27

Post by bradknowles »

conductr wrote: post #14
akerl_ wrote: post #5

Am I missing something, or is this a clear cut reversal the first time this law finds itself in front of the Supreme Court?

All these new Texas laws will be ruled against, likely before the Supreme Court. It’s all for naught and likely going to cost Abbott his job. We’ll see how strong the Texas conservatives are but I think these laws have them divided. They were insanely unified during Trump’s era and that’s how we got here.

It’s performance art by politicians. Playing to the rabid fringe, even though you know it’s all gonna get tossed. And when it does get tossed, that will enrage them more and you can squeeze them again for more donations.

Problem is, it manages to do some real damage and really hurt some people in the meanwhile.

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#28

Post by backtoyoujim »

hindsightbias wrote: post #7
akerl_ wrote: post #5

Am I missing something, or is this a clear cut reversal the first time this law finds itself in front of the Supreme Court?

Legislation is mostly performance art there.

And the Texas state constitution has almost 700 amendments.

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#29

Post by Aerroon »

Barrin92 wrote: post #21

The fact aside as others have pointed out that this basically a reversal of what free speech means, the other thing is, since when is an institution, merely because it has public character, required to tolerate all political viewpoints? Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism. It's a…

Should phone companies be able to ban people for their political opinions? ISPs? The water company? The electricity company? Why do they have to tolerate people using their services to push some political viewpoints?

Re: Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

#30

Post by leggomuhgreggo »

Barrin92 wrote: post #21

The fact aside as others have pointed out that this basically a reversal of what free speech means, the other thing is, since when is an institution, merely because it has public character, required to tolerate all political viewpoints? Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism. It's a…

The more worrisome "inversion of speech" would seem to be that institutions have the same free speech rights as humans.

Social media platforms are increasingly akin to the pubic forums of old, where essentially all meaningful exchange of ideas takes place — and where excommunication functions like "free speech zones" designed to marginalize and render the exercise of political expression inert.

I would suggest a relevant precedent might be laws limiting media ownership.

I'd also point out that institutions of a certain size exercise control over human in a similar way to governments — and the "private business" distinction becomes increasingly blurry when we consider how deeply these companies collide with law enforcement and govt agencies to censor information.

It's a complicated topic!

Post reply on HN