People should be free to speak their mind. Bigots, supremacists, terrorists, racists people should be able to speak freely. It’s not as if these people don’t exist. Keeping their anger pent up is bad, and can lead to insurrection. I know foxnews and even youtube let them speak freely in the comments section. Twitter should just follow the same model.
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
611–620 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#612Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think this would apply to bots. The Texas law text[1] says it only protects 'users' which are defined as people. And even then the law only prohibits censorship for specific reasons. It doesn't say companies can't ban users for running bots. Even if the messages the bot is posting are protected the fact of running the bot itself should still be a bannable offense if it's not allowed in th…
So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me?
> So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me?
For some definitions of low cost-of-living, sure. In this law specifically:
Sec. 120.002. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter
applies only to a user who:
(1) resides in this state;
(2) does business in this state; or
(3) shares or receives content on a social media
platform in this state.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#613Important 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…
This opinion is just badly written and badly reasoned. It's not even well written enough that it is worth trying to debate. Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising.
"This opinion is badly reasoned so it's not even worth debating" strikes me as a very poor way of engaging in dialectic. I mean, maybe it is poorly written and poorly reasoned, but best to demonstrate that to us, otherwise we're just kind of taking your word for it...
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
"that is not the same as muzzling" They are actively blocking stories about Biden. Actively filtering stories about negative aspects of COVID vaccines. They are actively filtering stories about inconsistencies in the 2020 election - "The most secure ever". They are amplifying stuff - absolutely... but they are also censoring free speech because "corporations are allowed too". "If you tell me something and I don't tel…
Using "actively" as emphasis is so, so tired. You're implying without evidence that they're doing it as part of some pro-Biden strategy. Why? Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. Do you support the Citizens United decision?
> Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't.
I'm fine with allowing them to censor speech if they also are liable for the speech they do choose to publish, just like any other individual, newspaper, or publisher would be.
Platforms cannot simultaneously claim that:
(1) They are mere conduits for other people's speech, and thus, deserve to be shielded from any liability for what they publish
(2) What they publish is their own speech, and thus, their publication choices should be considered protected expression under the first amendment.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#615Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're not protecting free speech in the places where free speech actually happens, then you are not protecting free speech at all. If speech has shifted online, to massive social media websites like Twitter, and you don't protect it there, then you have no free speech in your country.
There's no protection for free speech in the US only that the government can't make laws restricting it
Freedom of Expression is a core value in the US:
> Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.
https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression
As expression increasingly moves online, we will have to find ways to protect it online. A future in which the vast majority of speech happens in private online platforms, that may curtail it at will, is not just dystopian but goes against core American values, and the essence of freedom.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have different definitions of censorship. To me that is not censorship. Censorship is making information functionality unavailable or altering it. Delete it or deliberately make it very hard to access or change it’s contents. If you click a button or even add a message ( apart from the content ) that is not censorship. That’s why for example I don’t consider it censorship when youtube added covid messages to certa…
Sounds like some mental gymnastics to me
No you just loosened the definition of censorship to fit your terrible analogy, then you insulted the GP accusing them of doing mental gymnastics. You're projecting.
But since you do want to stick to the spam filter in your email box analogy I would like to propose a solution.
Would you prefer users be able to manage block lists, filters, and such themselves instead of content being removed for all users?
Do you really prefer this large social media oligopoly to have have final say in what the masses should see? Why not let the users manage what they see?
Do you feel the same way about all subjects? Do you support the right of ISPs blocking porn for example?
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#617It's your right to have an opinion, it's my right not to have to listen to it.
Its a persons right to have an opinion, its your right to not listen to it. Its not your right to stop everyone else from having the opportunity to listen to it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Attributed to Voltaire but actually from SG Tallentyre 1906.
A more accurate quote for todays crowd may be "I disapprove of what you say, and I will fight to the death to stop others from hearing you say it."
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "do your own research" meme works better when the initiator can make the target go refer to a corpus of questionable content (that is often already ideologically skewed), actively filter out whatever they find benign, and zero in on whatever lights up their confirmation bias.
It seems like you're trying to turn someone's objection to a weak argument into a weak argument itself by referring to it as an example of a "meme". I'm not sure I need to say anything else to be honest.
Sitting mighty high in the saddle for someone who didn't bother addressing anything I actually said.
Edit: also unclear whether you realize I'm agreeing with the comment I responded to or not. /shrug
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#619It's your right to have an opinion, it's my right not to have to listen to it.
Absolutely. But not your right to ensure that nobody can hear.
"I disapprove of what you say, and I will fight to the death to stop others from hearing you say it." - pretty sure this is a historic quote made into todays language.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#620Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are ISPs considered common carriers right now? I know that's changed a few times and I haven't kept up with the latest. Will social media companies be considered common carriers? That's still possible too. Ultimately, a "common carrier" is whatever the government says it is.
Yes so change that then come back and make your argument. The 1st amendment can also be undone but I'm not making arguments as if that had happened
It sounds like texas already has legislation that regulates that, and so doesn't need to go and come back