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

31–40 of 55 posts

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

#31

Post by Ekaros »

Aerroon wrote: post #29
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?

Let's say there is an easement should there be right to block use of that based on political options. After all it is private property.

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

#32

Post by radu_floricica »

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…

Uhh... wouldn't applying this to junk food be like "let's tax all McDonalds out of existence because people eat too many Big Macs"?

Or is it an example of Poe's law in action?

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

#33

Post by radu_floricica »

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…

Platforms have several advantages from being platforms, like not being legally responsible for what people are posting there (within limits). It feels right to have obligations as well. You can't say both "I'm not responsible for their political viewpoints" and "I'm free to select the political viewpoints of my members".

A church is not a platform.

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

#34

Post by Barrin92 »

leggomuhgreggo wrote: post #30
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 rele…

The problem with that comparison seems to me that old public forums did engage in plenty of restrictions. if Facebook functioned like the Ecclesia, these rules would apply[1]

    Do keep to the subject being discussed.
    Do treat each subject separately.
    Do not address the same subject twice in the same day.
    Do not be insulting and invective towards a fellow citizen.
    Do avoid slandering a fellow citizen.
    Do not interrupt the proceedings by standing up or shouting or speaking on anything that is not in order.
    Do not lay hands on the presiding officers or interfere with their duties.
"The Board of Presidents were authorized to impose a fine of up to 50 drachmas* to anyone who violated the above rules." (that's about two months of salary).

In fact funnily enough the ancient Board of Presidents is really not that different from Facebook's community oversight board. You will not find any public assembly in history that did not enact rules of conduct and excluded offenders if necessary.

[1]https://studyingreece.edu.gr/7-rules-of-public-speaking-in-a...

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

#35

Post by sufiaarsala »

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…

Taxes are very important for run any business and grow up. Taxes make your business secure and save for a bad websites. I also run a small business and I hired a SEO Experts (https://seoexperts.pk/) for my work and it site pay all taxes time to time and gives the best services.

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

#36

Post by Barrin92 »

radu_floricica wrote: post #33
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…

Platforms have several advantages from being platforms, like not being legally responsible for what people are posting there (within limits). It feels right to have obligations as well. You can't say both "I'm not responsible for their political viewpoints" and "I'm free to select the political viewpoints of my members". A church is not a platform.

> You can't say both "I'm not responsible for their political viewpoints" and "I'm free to select the political viewpoints of my members".

not only can you say that, it's pretty much a requirement for public platforms to exist on the internet. You are on Hackernews right now. If Hackernews was legally liable for the content users create, it would cease to exist. Likewise, if not being liable meant Hackernews could not moderate the site as they see fit, it would go to hell.

You should be able to make a Christian platform, a left wing platform, a conservative platform, moderate accordingly, and still be able to operate it without facing legal threats that would immediately render operating it impossible. The reason platforms have both rights is why we have a public internet.

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

#38

Post by throwawaysea »

Social media companies have too much power. As Justice Clarence Thomas articulated, big social media platforms should be treated as common carriers (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-ri...). They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. They are the new public square where civil liberties like free speech are most frequently exercised. Viewpoint discrimination on these platforms is bad for a liberal society, and plainly oppressive. Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. There are many ways in which they can be legally compelled to carry speech, as a UCLA Professor recently analyzed (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and...).

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

#39

Post by dllthomas »

radu_floricica wrote: post #33
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…

Platforms have several advantages from being platforms, like not being legally responsible for what people are posting there (within limits). It feels right to have obligations as well. You can't say both "I'm not responsible for their political viewpoints" and "I'm free to select the political viewpoints of my members". A church is not a platform.

> A church is not a platform.

But a pulpit is a platform.

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

#40

Post by ttymck »

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…

Should the government also target gambling, alcohol and pornography? Should companies in those fields be taxed as well? How do you measure how many Texans consume porn, and from which producers? Are you taxing the studios or the distributors? How many Texans drink Smirnoff?
Post reply on HN