Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by thephyber » Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

rastafang wrote: post #17

thephyber wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost no chance of that. This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same us…

> If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence? Let the judge decide... A company of that size should be stripped of that power

In theory I agree that almost all of this would be solved if the courts could work at the speed of social media. That’s a pipe dream though. There aren’t enough people with law degrees to throw at the problem, and we couldn’t afford it even if we did throw the problem at the courts.

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

#52

Post by thephyber » Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

chuckee wrote: post #12

thephyber wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost no chance of that. This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same us…

> This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. On the other hand, freedom of association didn't stop the civil rights act. But freedom of association is less clearly defined in the constitution. Maybe a better example are the many regulations on commercial speech that exist despite the 1st amendment.

The Civil Rights Act was bolstered by the 13A, 14A, and 15A. None of these necessarily protect anyone by their political party.

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

#53

Post by ttyprintk » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 1:17 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #16

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.

> potentially have all social media ban Texas residents The productivity gains from this action would far outweigh any economic loss.

But the rise in invincible spam would make sites like StackOverflow think twice about accepting questions from Texans.

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

#54

Post by ttyprintk » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #50

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?

If a leading politician is mostly shilling merchandise and asking for donations-to-nowhere, then what is the difference between political speech and spam?

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

#55

Post by ttyprintk » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #26

>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?

Other comments about the phone company answered this better, but the phone company is not offering an attractive option to block all crackpot phone calls coming in.