The EFF has really lost their way. They should not be defending Big Tech censoring the Internet.
I wonder if Trump’s Truth platform would allow “free speech”?
I’ve been banned from RedState repeatedly.
Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
31–40 of 47 posts
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be extremely controversial but I think Facebook should be able to take down pornography on their platform. Since pornography is considered speech in the US that means I’m not a free speech absolutist. I’m not sure where the right line to draw is but it’s clear platforms need some censorship rights over their platforms.
How about "pornography is OK but only if you're $RACE?" The issue at issue isn't "can they moderate content" but "should content moderation be applied equally"
That doesn't appear to be the case in HB 20, at all, although proponents have certainly tried to claim it is.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#33People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.
Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.
> You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed
But you can ban people who start restaurants and say "no blacks allowed". Do you see the difference the two groups? One is what people are. The other is what they say or do. Discrimination based on the the first is illegal. Discrimination based on the second is not.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#34People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.
We should not expect private individuals or corps to be able to infringe on people's rights.
If a monopoly infringes on any of my rights, I expect the government to do something about it. Heck, even a non-monopoly company. Such companies should be split up, regulated, whatever, and the officers should be subject to penalties.
A monopoly should not be thought of in the same way as some random company.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#35The EFF has really lost their way. They should not be defending Big Tech censoring the Internet.
I'm sympathetic to attempts to rein in overzealous social media moderation but... this position is entirely consistent with the EFF for as long as I remember there being an EFF. A law that says you can't moderate social media strikes me as worse than leftist moderators.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.
> You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed But you can ban people who start restaurants and say "no blacks allowed". Do you see the difference the two groups? One is what people are. The other is what they say or do. Discrimination based on the the first is illegal. Discrimination based on the second is not.
You are assuming the answer.
We are currently having an argument as to whether such discrimination should be allowed.
Given we have a right to free speech, and that this is not allowed to be infringed on by any US government, does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it?
There is quite a body of law that says that the government should do just that.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#37Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.
The "left's" position is that both are free speech.
Free speech means that someone is allowed to engage in speech, not that they are immune from the social or market consequences for their speech.
The "left's" contention with Citizens United was that spending money was treated as speech. But spending money is not speech. It's an act. Speech is content.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed But you can ban people who start restaurants and say "no blacks allowed". Do you see the difference the two groups? One is what people are. The other is what they say or do. Discrimination based on the the first is illegal. Discrimination based on the second is not.
You are assuming the answer. We are currently having an argument as to whether such discrimination should be allowed. Given we have a right to free speech, and that this is not allowed to be infringed on by any US government, does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it? There is quite a body of law that says that the government should do just…
That’s a really roundabout way of saying “The government isn’t allowed to infringe on speech (generally speaking), therefore the government should be compelled to intervene when a private entity infinges on the principles of free speech on its private property”. It’s a non sequitur, and even as non sequiturs go, this is a particularly unserious one.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#39People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.
We should not expect private individuals or corps to be able to infringe on people's rights. If a monopoly infringes on any of my rights, I expect the government to do something about it. Heck, even a non-monopoly company. Such companies should be split up, regulated, whatever, and the officers should be subject to penalties. A monopoly should not be thought of in the same way as some random company.
Being moderated by a social media website is not an infringement of your rights, and social media platforms are not monopolies.
Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed
#40People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.
Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.
And yet as a restaurant owner you have the right to determine what is and isn't on your menu, and to eject unruly customers and (barring legally protected classes) can legally refuse service to anyone.