> "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling. I don't really understand this; from my perspective, it sounds like this judge doesn't really understand the first amendment (hopefully this is not the case, and the quote is taken out of context). Corporations are…
> Corporations are not bound by the restrictions laid out in the first amendment; only the government is.
I think that is no longer the consensus. We have corporations that rival governments now.
"Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. Blocking unpopular content doesn't become a political act just because one side produces more of it than the other.
> "Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. No, it's users trying to censor what they don't want other people to be permitted to say or see. Twitter users have a "block" button; they're free to use it, and thus limit what they themselves will see.
Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced.
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.
Do you want the owners of those small communities to get sued if someone posts copywrited material?
If they don’t censor, they’re not liable. If they censor, they are liable.
How limited is the given district court of appeals case law precedent in regards to must-carry and Equal time rules for non-licensed spectrum Information Service providers? Are they now common carrier liability, too? Equal time rules and American media history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule Who pays for all of this? > "Give me my free water!"
> The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States. [5][6]
Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…
The problem here is accountability, with traditional solutions you can't have accountability and anonymity, anonymity encourages bad behaviour but also encourages sharing your thoughts without censoring yourself, maybe in future you will be only allowed to post when your account is registered using your special ID that every citizen will get from government saying "this is a real person" but you will not know who it is, and then appealing blocked account will be regulated by special law for social networks with more than x million users. This will limit bot usage to minimum, free speech problem would be partially solved because now you can be identified the same way as you would on the street IF you break the law but if you are not breaking any law then social network employees or other participants in the social network will not know who you are or know what's your name if you don't want them to. Maybe something like that would work?
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.
What is 'botting'? Would it include paying a bunch of college kids $50 to spam reply this message to people for 3 hours a day?
That all depends on how many years your attorney has been playing golf with the judge.