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

41–50 of 55 posts

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

#41

Post by sneak »

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…

> No one needs social media. It is toxic.

Both of these statements are false.

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

#42

Post by leggomuhgreggo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #4

Abbot admitting that the purpose of the law is to force unwilling private entities to promote conservative viewpoints is likely to be front and center in the ruling striking it down as an overt free speech violation. That's the part you are supposed to at least make opponents catch you saying privately to a friendly audience to prove their point...

You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored?

I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree

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

#43

Post by leggomuhgreggo »

Barrin92 wrote: post #34
leggomuhgreggo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I dig the historical context!

My (perhaps sloppy) comparison with respect to public forums wasn't meant to be specific to Ancient Roman strictures, but that's solid trivia.

Perhaps the closer analogue would be modern public spaces in the US — although that too only goes so far.

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

#44

Post by Banana699 »

mikewarot wrote: post #13

It seems like Texas, as a whole, has decided to commit economic and political suicide. From the self inflicted failures of the power and gas infrastructure last winter, to the latest assault on women, this law could potentially have all social media ban Texas residents.

>It seems like Texas, as a whole, has decided to commit economic and political suicide.

Not really, corporations don't give a heck about rights or principles, only regulations and laws.

Corporations verbally obey and pay lip service to the moral fashions of the perceived memetic majority, that's the user interface.

The backend is a ruthless optimization engine maximizing a very specific utility function and caring for literally nothing else.

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

#45

Post by dragonwriter »

leggomuhgreggo wrote: post #42
dragonwriter wrote: post #4

Abbot admitting that the purpose of the law is to force unwilling private entities to promote conservative viewpoints is likely to be front and center in the ruling striking it down as an overt free speech violation. That's the part you are supposed to at least make opponents catch you saying privately to a friendly audience to prove their point...

You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored? I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree

> You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored?

No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism, or improper effect can make a law unconstitutional.

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

#46

Post by filoeleven »

throwawaysea wrote: post #38

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…

> They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility.

Oh, but they are! My phone company makes no attempt to influence the content of my voice or text conversations, nor how I use my data plan. Facebook/Twitter do their very best to tailor what I see to keep me scrolling and “engaged.” If this is the new public square, the crack dealers are already selling, and in fact are the ones who built the square.

I think I like the idea of social media as common carrier. It would require vast changes in how their apps are designed though.

> Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws.

This seems like a bad idea, unless you want to elevate the status of political affiliation to that of religion, and expect violations of that protection to be enforced just as unevenly.

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

#47

Post by propogandist »

dragonwriter wrote: post #45
leggomuhgreggo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored? I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree

> You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored? No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism,…

the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint.

The recent events, where conservative voices were targeted by big tech, was the catalyst for the law, but that doesn't make it illegal.

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

#48

Post by dragonwriter »

propogandist wrote: post #47
dragonwriter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored? No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism,…

the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint. The recent events, where conservative voices were targeted by big tech, was the catalyst for the law, but that doesn't make it illegal.

> the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint.

You seem to be assuming a facially neutral law with a viewpoint specific purpose is Constitutional. It is not.

Usually, its harder to prove an improper purpose for a facially-neutral law, but then usually the people passing and signing a law with an improper purpose don't just public announce the viewpoint they are seeking to advance.

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

#49

Post by iammisc »

ttymck wrote: post #40
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?

Yes. Many states do tax gambling establishments if not outright ban them. Why not? They are vices.

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

#50

Post by klyrs »

throwawaysea wrote: post #38

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…

> Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws.

What's special about a political viewpoint? How do you even define "political viewpoint"? Is it different from a "religious viewpoint"? Is it different from a run-of-the-mill opinion?

Post reply on HN