So does this mean the conservative baker has to make me a cake for my gay wedding?
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
901–910 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#902Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, all of that's true, so long as you can convince a judge, or a jury of peers selected by a team of attorneys highly paid to make your life a nightmare. The law is subjective, just like your spiteful view of it. And you can bet there are spiteful judges, just like you.
A lot of your comments seem to be in the realm of "it doesn't matter what the law is, judges and juries will do what they want", which I partly agree with, but within the context of this debate we should assume that judges and juries will uphold the law. Otherwise, why are we debating the pros and cons of the law if nobody is going to uphold it?
I read it more as ”you obviously understand the spirit of the law, and so will judges and jury members, even if the letter of it can be twisted if you argue in bad faith”. Not that the law would be intentionally ignored in favor of anyone’s personal agenda. A lot of people seem to love to try to poke hole in laws through nitpicking and technicalities in the written word, whereas in reality rulings are made by humans who are still allowed a modicum of common sense and discretion.
NB, I haven’t read the law and I wouldn’t be qualified to comment anyway, this is my interpretation of the comment you responded to.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#903Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not charitable, that's obsequious! You have never lost your First Amendment rights in the context of a corporate venture. Citizens United goes substantially beyond affirming that fact: it establishes a separate notion of 1A personhood for the corporation itself .
It’s the same old “personhood” fiction for doing things in groups that’s been around since Dartmouth College vs Woodward, which is over 200 years at this point. Corporations are also entitled to other rights that can be exercised by groups, like not having their property searched without a warrant or seized without just compensation, or their contracts broken. They are presumed innocent in court unless demonstrated g…
Why is a for profit corporation the right instrument here? It seems to me that wanting to join together for political speech doesn't need a profit motive, since there is another motive. Does America not recognize provide any manners for organization that are not for profit without needing to be charitable?
A 'foundation' in the Netherlands (where I am from) would serve perfectly. And it seems to make sense to me to bar for-profit organizations from influencing elections because of the inherent conflict.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#904Will 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…
This is already happening basically and twitter aren't banning anyway. (Try mentioning any drug or being 'hacked' or needing an 'essay' written, you'll get a flood of replies in a few minutes.)
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#905Copied 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 thought that censoring speech in privately owned public spaces was fine. It's only when a government censors speech that the first amendment kicks in.
I do, as it happens, believe it is a problem that Twitter censors so much speech without 'legitimacy'. Not because they censor the wrong things, but because their censorship without legitimacy fuels a persecution complex.
This is mostly a problem because Twitter is so big. And I don't think starting alternative Twitters (like truth social) is a good solution, mostly because it partitions the conversation even more.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#906Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. It depends, can I go to the mall and start preaching the gospel? The answer is yes - at least in NYC, SF, Chicago, etc (where these legal cases have played out). I’m legally aloud to do that; and as it’s the public square I cannot legally be removed (doesn’t mean y…
"Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.
The internet are the roads (also the commons), social media is the town & national square.
The stores would be equivalent to stores. So Amazon, Etsy, etc. you can get there through social media.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#907Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the thing, it's not. If they specifically said that I'd be banned for having certain opinions different from Zuckerberg, I'd have never complained but they didn't. They are vague, they are disingenuous and I honestly cannot believe so many people are defending them for censoring others. Politics aside, Facebook bans people for smallest of things. I got banned for 30 days for quoting someone's comment. It's a c…
I think the concern here is that the new ruling could make it mandatory for Facebook etc. to distribute hate-speech. Who wants such an outcome? The haters.
Why are we acting as if the 2000s never happened? There was no large-scale censorship (what is now disguised as 'moderation') and the communities flourished independently. Turns out, people like to choose what they want to see.
These days, anything and everything that is slightly uncomfortable to groups is labeled as 'hate-speech'. If nobody can define what 'hate speech' really is and if the definition changes person to person, then you're arguing for the wrong reasons. What you're looking for is tightly-isolated communities with consent, bridging and moderation in their own spaces, not worldwide censorship.
I don't like it when others are disrespectful to me, but I always have a choice of shutting down the discussion and moving on. Online communities that spread dangerous ideas are going to form in their own space, no matter what we do so banning any opinions that do not adhere to certain political views is not only dangerous but also creates a division of 'you vs me' and that thing gets ugly quick. If we know 2 communities clash, we keep them separated, as simple as that and it already happens so no big deal. It's like having a work and family chat group, different purposes, different people, different ideas, 0 clashes.
The problem is you're looking at everything through the lens of offensive content. If you tell me that majority of the banned comments on the social media websites are illegal by constitution, you'd have a point but this isn't a reality. People are banned for the smallest of things, for disagreeing with someone else respectfully, for following certain political ideas.
Here's another example: John Stossel was censored even though he posted factual statements - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmht6Tbtzg
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#908Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do not generally lose rights by coming together to do something.
What if the state limits their liability? Can extra rules apply to balance the lack of liability?
Depends on the state involved. I’m sure that would be perfectly fine in Austria, or other countries with nominal free speech rights like Germany. In the US the First Amendment is generally interpreted maximally.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#909Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.
For many, many people the internet doesn’t really exist outside of a few FAANG apps. Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it? Add to that platforms such as Facebook groups and Reddit subreddits, where the individual groups are much more like stalls and the platform is like the mall.
> Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it?
To be fair, Rumble is a decent alternative. Some videos have millions of views, they basically accept anything that’s protected by the first amendment. A lot of banned creators have moved or are moving there.
That said, I’d still argue YouTube is “the commons”. Just like you can have multiple malls and a town square, there’s no real argument there should be a limit.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#910Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 the…
Exactly. They want it both ways. If you are algorithmically boosting some views and deleting others, now it’s your speech and you should be liable.