Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to be clear you're advocating for tech companies to ignore the justice system?
Quoted post unavailable.
[deleted]
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
351–360 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only research that has been done on this found that on Twitter the conservative voices were amplified more than progressive voices: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/27/twitter-am...
Interesting point, I guess I’m making the assertion that conservative ideas can spread better in small groups then liberal ideas since liberal ideas are trying to change the status quo they just have to plant a seed. Conservative ideas have to be fought for since “everyone already know them” (quotes for broad generalizations without data, but leaning into the fact that conservative ideas should be inherently more wel…
So conservatives viewpoints spread in small groups better, a situation where you are less likely to be challenged and less likely to hear opposing viewpoints (because of the size)
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#353The consequences of this law aren’t very clear, especially in the post Citizens United world where scotus has established that corporations have first amendment rights that are protected by constitution. Now, if a corporation is in some sense required to carry someone’s message due to some law, that gets into (arguably) the realm of forced speech. Don’t get me wrong, I think Citzens United is a horrible ruling, and t…
It's been done before. See: the Fairness Doctrine for TV, or common carrier laws for phones.
Broadcast TV was using public airwaves. That never applied to cable or satellite TV.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only research that has been done on this found that on Twitter the conservative voices were amplified more than progressive voices: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/27/twitter-am...
The opinion of three journalists working for the same retail tech conglomerate is hardly "research." WaPo has suffered a Pulitzer Prize revocation in 1981 for fabricating stories, has continuously circulated advertisements from China Watch (operated by the CCP), repeatedly settled on libelous claims made for profit, and on numerous occasions assisted in providing platforms for anti-Western and anti-Semitic groups sup…
So have many other media outlets. It's an old company with many employees some of whom aren't going to be ethical.
As for the Chinese government ads: do you want them to censor it?
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been done before. See: the Fairness Doctrine for TV, or common carrier laws for phones.
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.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#356Important 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…
If social media wishes to be immune from lawsuits regarding the content it publishes, section 203, then it should not have the ability to censor such content for an explicit commercial revenue model. I understand why people hate that opinion, because they want civil discourse and nearly free access to media online. Uncensored content pushes normal people out. Those things are great, but are ultimately out of alignmen…
So walmart is responsible if a person in one of their stores walks around holding an image of child pornography?
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#357As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed. At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it. Social me…
[flagged]
I doubt your blog has 50 million visitors, so your argument is ridiculous
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd be surprised. Folks will pick brands for political reasons, too. More, folks will band against brands for said reasons. I mean, you are correct that there can be neutral discussions. Typically, neutral isn't as neutral as you'd think.
I agree, but you’re being pedantic. Most discussions people have not about political topics wouldn’t be viewed as such even if individual decisions, such as your brand example, were politically motivated.
[deleted]
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#359Important 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…
> How the 1st Amendment might protect a corporation's religious POV but not its exercise of editorial control is a very good question
I don’t think this court buys the idea that the platforms exercise editorial control. For example:
“But the more fundamental problem with the Platforms’ reliance on Herbert is that they do not have an “editorial process” that looks anything like a traditional publisher’s. See supra Part III.C.2.c. Herbert involved discovery into how an editor selected, composed, and edited a particular story. See 441 U.S. at 156–57. But the Platforms, of course, neither select, compose, nor edit (except in rare instances after dissemination) the speech they host. So even if there was a different rule for disclosure requirements implicating a newspaper-like editorial process, that rule would not apply here because the Platforms have no such process.”
Or:
“ The Platforms are nothing like the newspaper in Miami Herald. Unlike newspapers, the Platforms exercise virtually no editorial control or judgment. The Platforms use algorithms to screen out certain obscene and spam-related content.8 And then virtually everything else is just posted to the Platform with zero editorial control or judgment. “Something well north of 99% of th[is] content . . . never gets reviewed further. The content on a site is, to that extent, invisible to the [Platform].” NetChoice, LLC v. Moody, 546 F. Supp. 3d 1082, 1092 (N.D. Fla. 2021). Thus the Platforms, unlike newspapers, are primarily “conduit[s] for news, comment, and advertising.” Miami Herald, 418 U.S. at 258. And that’s why the Supreme Court has described them as “the modern public square.” Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1737; see also Biden v. Knight First Amend. Inst., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1224 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting Platforms are also “unlike newspapers” in that they “hold themselves out as organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public”). The Platforms’ own representations confirm this.9 They’ve told their users: “We try to explicitly view ourselves as not editors. . . . We don’t want to have editorial judgment over the content that’s in your feed.”10 They’ve told the public that they “may not monitor,” “do not endorse,” and “cannot take responsibility for” the content on their Platforms.11 They’ve told Congress that their “goal is to offer a platform for all ideas.”12 And they’ve told courts—over and over again—that they simply “serv[e] as conduits for other parties’ speech.”13“
They kind of have a point. The platforms seem most interested in minimizing financial costs like the hiring of moderation staff and loss of advertising and reputational costs like PR damage and pissing off sensitive users. They don’t seem to have any particular editorial mission. They seem to mainly want to grow and profit. I actually wonder if they would have a stronger case if they were avowedly advancing a leftist agenda. IANAL
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#360Will 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…
I would actually like this. Imagine if online discussion was so visibly bad that no one used it anymore. Talk to real people. Go outside.
Some people have social anxiety.