What's funny is that none of the big tech firms would need to change their policies or behaviors, should this actually become the law of the land, as there are currently no policies that prohibit political speech from any of their platforms.
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
101–110 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#102Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
In one case the corporation is speaking. In the other the corporation is facilitating me speaking to you (like a telephone wire). That strikes me as a pretty clear distinction. My hair is not blown back at all here.
So a Linux User Group cannot kick out someone that's espousing neo-nazi viewpoints during meetings because they're a facilitator of them speaking to you, and because neo-nazism is a political viewpoint?
Does the LUG have 50M MAU?
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#104If this passes, basically what's going to happen is a lot of pre-filtering of people entering social networks akin to next doors strategy. I've worked at a civic tech social network that had no rules, and eventually the extremists pushed out all the normal folks - it's just stupid shouting matches. We tore it all down and made isolated communities. It's basically the only way to have real discourse.
It already passed, it's a law on the books in Texas. And now it's been upheld at by both trial and circuit courts.
FWIW: there's one last chance at SCOTUS to undo this, but if that doesn't work out what we're almost certain to see instead of "pre-filtering" is just "No Tweeting from Texas".
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#105If this passes, basically what's going to happen is a lot of pre-filtering of people entering social networks akin to next doors strategy. I've worked at a civic tech social network that had no rules, and eventually the extremists pushed out all the normal folks - it's just stupid shouting matches. We tore it all down and made isolated communities. It's basically the only way to have real discourse.
It’s called living offline.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? Starbucks is a privately owned location and has the right to enforce behavioral standards or kick people out. Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. The internet has plenty of…
Starbucks product is also coffee, not a speech platform.
social media's product is eyeballs on ads, not a speech platform
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#107Repeal section 230 All of this sounds like an aberration created by giving these companies immunity.
It will result in way higher moderation, instead of less. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actua...
I want smaller, tighter knit, and moderated communites.
Why do we care about outcome anyway? The outcome of section 230 was arbitrary moderation, consolidation, and surveillance capitalism. It is unnatural for an entity to not be liable for what they publish.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how the heck my website is a public square but my home or café isn't, this argument sounds self-contradictory
Your website isn't a public square because you're the one publishing content to it. We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host.
They are not public platforms, though. Not anymore public than a Starbucks. Just because "the public" can walk through a store's unlocked doors doesn't make the place public property. Same with social media. Just because "the public" can log into the platform's system doesn't make the place public.
Social media does, in my view, publish the content they host. It's not like the telephone, where you establish a direct connection to your audience and the mediator gets out of the way. When you post something to social media, there are three separate steps that happen:
1. You send the content to the SM company.
2. The SM company does some kind of processing on the content.
3. The SM company publishes that content (or not) somewhere on their site.
These things happen pretty much instantaneously, but they are still happening. Posting to Social Media is more like writing a Letter to the Editor of the newspaper. They receive the letter, decide whether to include it in the paper, then include it in the paper.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#109Important 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 a pretty abrupt turnaround from the same legal movement that brought us Citizens United . I’d be interested in a fair (i.e. not overly critical or fawning) book length history of the Federalist Society and how it’s evolved.
I'm not so sure, since section 230's safe harbor is involved. If section 230's protections were dropped for social media, I am sure that most courts would adopt the Citizens United standard.
However, that would mean a ton of lawsuits for all the defamation and harassment that happens on those platforms.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#110Earlier 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"
Whether or not pineapple on pizza is acceptable can technically be brought to a political argument but anyone not turned into a rage monster by current social media can tell that it isn't a political debate in the current environment.