61–70 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. The court isn't saying you can't moderate out the cesspool posts. They are saying that you can't choose political sides.
Every decision is inherently "political"
Important to note that this 5th Circuit ruling conflicts with the 11th Circuit's ruling. And SCOTUS had previously reinstated an injunction against this very same law. And this 5th Circuit opinion has very idiosyncratic reasoning [0, just the first few pages will blow your hair back]. A sample: "In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of cours…
The term “conservative” means nothing if you apply it to a court which has overturned years of legal norm across various areas of law.
But any instance that creates a brand new legal situation does not qualify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to be clear you're advocating for tech companies to ignore the justice system?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. The court isn't saying you can't moderate out the cesspool posts. They are saying that you can't choose political sides.
Every decision is inherently "political"
The definition of political used by the populace is almost always the narrow subset of societal/cultural fights that are actively being argued. Generally speaking these arguments are headed by politicians.
There is also a space in the definition for arguments directly impact the structure/scope of the government. Although this may be separate enough that it may warrant being considered a second definition instead of an additional category within the first definition.
The social media companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter) want legal permission to censor us based on our "viewpoint". Because if they can't do that, they warn, then "dangerous content" will grow out of control. This seems like a big nope to me.
The alternative is having the government decide whether or not a private company can block a particular person for a particular reason. Everyone is generally ok with companies blocking content that is irrelevant/off-topic, but there is a very, very large gray area. Do you want the government deciding what is acceptable?
Important to note that this 5th Circuit ruling conflicts with the 11th Circuit's ruling. And SCOTUS had previously reinstated an injunction against this very same law. And this 5th Circuit opinion has very idiosyncratic reasoning [0, just the first few pages will blow your hair back]. A sample: "In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of cours…
It's also interesting to compare the tone of the two opinions. The majority is theatrical. That's not what I want to see from a court. Unfortunately, it's hardly unique to this court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. The court isn't saying you can't moderate out the cesspool posts. They are saying that you can't choose political sides.
Every decision is inherently "political"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every decision is inherently "political"
I often see this sentiment associated with those who wish to regulate political speech they find offensive. It's convenient if everything is political so that everything said can be regulated.
If I'm running a car forum, I should be able to ban pro-Nazi rhetoric if I want, regardless of whether I find it offensive or merely technically off topic. Not every space on the internet needs to be /pol/.
Censoring and moderating and content, as it relates to this lawsuit, is very expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if it ranks pretty high in their cost chart. The only reason that social media platforms do content moderation is to manage the financial (advertisers), and the political risk. Well, if the politicians and the courts tell them they can't moderate political stuff, then the political risk has been removed. Al…
It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.