381–390 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misunderstood. Don’t require users to build their bubbles, but have providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from. You could even have external bubble providers that offer different technologies and qualities of filters. Just don’t have one centralised overlord.
we have a centralized overlord?
- Google (including GMail)
- Meta (Facebook, Instagram)
Or only if the spam is wrapped up as a political viewpoint?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people want there to be a public square online, lobby the government to build and maintain it. Call it "US GOV Civic Not-Facebook public square". Let your taxes pay for it and enjoy all the awesome freedom it'll bring. Otherwise, stop trying to dictate how a private company runs their own business. You already pay for literal, physical town squares, why not a digital one?
No need for a government-sponsored forum, when smaller forums are explicitly exempted from the Texas law. The law at issue still allows forums with 49,999,999 or fewer users to discriminate based on political viewpoint. It only says sites larger than that need to allow all political viewpoints (but only if they allow any political viewpoints, and only if they have users in Texas). Legal: Message board with 49 million…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The apparent disdain for Texas in this thread is bizarre.
There wouldn't be disdain for Texas if Texas didn't do stupid things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The very fact that you made this comment implies that you expect the public to understand what it means. Therefore, so would a jury of your peers. In other words, if you get that this behavior is just a twist on botting, it's safe to assume the courts will too.
If I have to run a thin thread of politics through my product from beginning to end I will. It won't be the first time a product is tied to a political identity, and it's often beneficial to do so. Heck, I'll even make two similar products and tie each to a different political party, so everyone can buy the product that matches their political view. My products are political statements, and 1% of all profits go to po…
The law is subjective, just like your spiteful view of it. And you can bet there are spiteful judges, just like you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Broadcast TV was using public airwaves. That never applied to cable or satellite TV.
And the Internet was created by the US government, so it's also a public resource. Ok, it's been privatized, but can the government abdicate it's responsibility to protect freedom of speech by privatizing? Edit because I'm "posting too fast": Paying for most of the infrastructure didn't make TV stations or phone companies exempt from similar regulation. I don't see why it would make social networks exempt.
If the government of Texas wants a free for all social platform, they can create one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me?
Probably, but I don't they that should be allowed. I suppose someone with an applicable disability could also use software/automation to they point where they can post more than someone without that disability.
In each of those cases, the original speech is a user's, and the bot is merely following the human user's publication instructions.
Copied from a comment thread below. Because I feel this is the root of the issue/problem. > 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. Yup. This is the exact problem that we’re (as a society/world) wrestling with. The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people…
i don’t think the crux of the issue is determining how to legislate the priv/publ dichotomy, but rather how can we enable as many people as desire an ability to establish their own chalkboard. legislation as its proceeding is serving to entrench big tech platforms, its disabling the common person from having their own chalkboard with its own moderation preferences. let the market decide. this, in my opinion, is not t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i don’t think the crux of the issue is determining how to legislate the priv/publ dichotomy, but rather how can we enable as many people as desire an ability to establish their own chalkboard. legislation as its proceeding is serving to entrench big tech platforms, its disabling the common person from having their own chalkboard with its own moderation preferences. let the market decide. this, in my opinion, is not t…
That may be a better ideal solution, but that’s not the world we live in. I have no interest in establishing my own chalk board, nor do most people.
Copied from a comment thread below. Because I feel this is the root of the issue/problem. > 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. Yup. This is the exact problem that we’re (as a society/world) wrestling with. The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people…
> 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. If it's a website with over 50 million users, and it's designed explicitly as a place for these users to express themselves, then calling it "a public square" seems entirely warranted.