Probably because his ideas and opinions are actively censored. It's no secret that social media has a heavy bias.
both sides think "social media" is biased against them; I honestly could not guess which way you think the bias goes
And both Ukraine and Russia say they are being attacked.
I think there is real bias (and in the West it's more biased against conservatives and some minority groups while it's different elsewhere, depends mostly on the dominant ideology) and there's faux discrimination to get victim points to trade in for control.
They are given massive subsidies from the government to do so. Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do.
> Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do Social network and communications have nothing to do with each-other? are you reading what you are writing? How is Facebook messenger call different from a phonecall of the 21st century?
Communication is infrastructure. A social network is not. Pretty straight forward.
This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.
A corporation is a creation of government. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate them any way they think best? Which isn't necessarily to say this is a good idea, but... of course government should be able to tell companies how to operate.
Except in ways that are constitutionally prohibited, right?
Congress passed a law to specifically ensure they are websites are not responsible for the speech they reproduce. This law is good because it encourages content moderation because there are never consequences for the moderation decisions.
> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?
Unambiguous good? No, it will depend on the quality of the moderation.
But I think it is more important to encourage good moderators to moderate more than it is to punish poor moderation.
IANAL, and have not read Florida's law, but it sounds ripe for abuse by trolls:
1 - Become a political candidate (even if a write-in for some bottom-end office in a tiny municipality)
2 - Register with social networks as a Florida-protected candidate
3 - Spend all your time spewing hate at people you don't like. Maybe automate that, to get both far more spewing and far more free time.
Welcome to the natural consequence of social networks becoming important to just do daily business. The phone companies, and other utilities, operate under strict rules. I do wonder how many and type of companies will become internet utilities?
99.5% of Americans could never log into Facebook, Twitter or anything ever again with no substantial impact on their daily lives. The remaining 0.5% have careers centered around social media and should probably find a real job. Honest to goodness, the hyperventilation about how "important" social media is just amazes me.
And 100% of people could live without phone companies with no impact to their daily lives, we’ve got internet right? Of course I would be the one defining impact here. You may consider impact to daily lives not substantial, but others see the substantial impact of not being able to reach their family, friends, and customers and the disadvantage that comes with others having that access but you not. It’s not like Facebook actually is making the “social media” you see in your feed, it is 100% carrying social media from users, the same way a phone company aren’t the one making calls.
Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.
How would this even work on Reddit? Currently user moderators control all the user made subreddits. If Reddit now has legal liability does Reddit need to moderate All subreddits by themselves? That sounds impossible.
That’s partially true. Reddit assigns moderators to your subreddit as well and if you don’t moderate in a way they like will force you to remove certain moderators or even ban your community.
fine with downvoting, just no banning or censoring for unpopular opinions
People don't usually get banned for their opinions. They get banned for being jerks. Try enabling showdead. There are some accounts marked as [dead] that I don't get, but the vast, vast majority of flagkilled posts and banned accounts I've seen don't deserve the product of someone else's labor to propagate their speech.
This is idealistic thinking however there are countless cases where a ban was done by a bad actor or bad algorithm, with the only recourse being a user taking their ban to another platform to complain, and if they gain enough traction on another platform then they get the ban reversed. Unfortunately that only works for large creators while small creators have zero recourse for unjust bans.
At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the CDC), ban certain people in response to political pressures, and hand over user's private data without a warrant. That doesn't mean regulating them like common carries is good or workable, but we need to start by recognizing that there are first amendment clai…
The problem is finding the right balance between free speech and censorship. I look forward to see how cases that go to the Supreme Court are going to be handled. I personally believe that a private business like Facebook has the right to control content on their app/website.
The Supreme Court is little more than a chapter of the Federalist Society right now. Even Roberts cannot moderate them.
This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.
On the other hand, stripping corporations of their speech, reversing Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, would be great. But that isn't the real objective behind this law.