North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept
What is it with state legislators not having anyone around them who can explain to them how Section 230 works, leading them to push incredibly stupid state bills? We've written about both Republicans and Democrats pushing bills to modify Section 230, ignoring how 230 likely pre-empts those attempts (if the 1st Amendment doesn't already).
Many of these bills misunderstand Section 230, the 1st Amendment, or how content moderation works. Though, many of them misunderstand the law in fairly predictable ways. Last week three state Senators in North Carolina -- Senators Ted Alexander, Kevin Corbin, and Todd Johnson -- surprised me. Oh no, it's not that they were some state elected officials who actually bothered to understand Section 230, because trust me, they did not. But they surprised me in that they misread Section 230 in a novel and completely ridiculous way that I'd not seen before. It's so bad that it causes me to question the great state of North Carolina: how do you elect people this bad?
The bill has all the trappings of many of the dumb Republican state 230 bills that think (incorrectly) that they can compel websites to host speech (something that is not allowed under the 1st Amendment). But this one takes it up a level. The bill is officially entitled: An Act to Enact the Stop Social Media Censorship Act to Prohibit Certain Social Media Websites from Censoring Certain Political or Religious Speech. That is already quite a mouthful. First it's act to enable another act, which says that it will stop to prohibit? I mean, c'mon guys.
But here's where things get just... wrong. The authors of the bill claim (wildly incorrectly) that Section 230 has a "state law exemption" that allows them to "cure abuses of Section 230." Here's what the bill says:
Whereas, repealing section 230 of the Communications Decency Act at the federal level is unnecessary because it already includes a state law exemption, and the Stop Social Media Censorship Act was crafted to fall squarely in the state law exemption of section 230 to cure abuses of section 230 to protect the consumers of this State
Except, that's wrong. I mean, it's literally the exact opposite of what Section 230 actually says. Section 230(e)(3) does not "exempt" states, it pre-empts them and says that no state can pass a law that ignores 230. Honestly, it looks like whoever drafted this bill read only the first half of the first sentence of (e)(3) and thought they'd found the loophole. Here's what (e)(3) actually says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
That is not saying that 230 exempts state law. It's saying that it does not allow state laws that are inconsistent with 230. And, this is not exactly a secret. I mean, beyond saying it pretty damn clearly, there are tons of courts that have made this point over and over again over the years. State laws are pre-empted by 230, and they can't pass a law that gets around it. So, not only did the authors of this bill not even read the full sentence they seem to be pointing to, they did apparently no research at all, nor spoke to any Section 230 expert who could have told them that the law does not allow this.
The rest of the bill is the usual performative nonsense, mistakenly claiming that social media companies practiced "bait-and-switch" because they "market themselves as free, fair and open to all ideas" but that because they've moderated fraudsters, liars, and disinfo peddlers, that somehow makes their marketing claims "false advertising and deceptive trade practices." This is all, of course, utter nonsense. These websites have every right to moderate as they see fit both under the 1st Amendment and under their own terms of service, which everyone agrees to when they sign up.
The bill specifically tries to create a civil right of action for people who have been moderated to bring claims of deceptive trade practices, false advertising, breach of contract, bad faith, unfair dealing, fraudulent inducement, and, my personal favorite: "The stifling of political and religious speech in the modern day digital public square cultivated by social media websites that have achieved critical mass through fraud." Another mouthful of utter nonsense.
The bill does say that some speech is okay for a website to moderate -- including calls for "immediate acts of violence" (distant future violence is apparently okay). It also says that sites can take down impersonation accounts or bullying of minors (bullying adults is apparently fine as well). It also says, explicitly, that social media companies cannot take down content for hate speech. Like, literally, these three ignorant, foolish senators are insisting that websites be forced to host hate speech. Explicitly:
A social media website may not utilize a user's alleged hate speech as a basis for justification or as a defense to an action under this section
That's kind of impressive. I mean, normally when idiot elected officials push bills like this, they act surprised when people point out that their bill will encourage hate speech. But here, Senators Alexander, Corbin, and Johnson are literally putting it on front street that social media companies must host hate speech and bullying (as long as it's not a minor). Fuck these guys (and under their own bill, they should be fine with such insults).
The bill also targets the other mythical bogeyman of ignorant Republicans: "shadowbanning." It would not be allowed under this law.
Even without Section (e)(3), which these foolish, foolish elected officials misread, this bill is so incredibly in violation of the 1st Amendment that it would never actually become operational. But the level of sheer stupidity built into this bill raises serious questions about how these complete and utter fools ever got elected to anything more powerful than the local dog catcher.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, kevin corbin, north carolina, pre-emption, section 230, social media, ted alexander, todd johnson
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wish I knew. 😓
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's theater plain and simple. They don't really want this bill to pass. They just want to use it for political brownie points.
We proposed legislation that would prevent the fraud, corruption, and political manipulation that is rampant today, but those dastardly Democrats don't want a fair and open system! Keep voting for us and we'll fight the good fight!
And let's be brutal about it, both sides pull this type of garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ummm. what kind of brownie points are they trying to win? One that would get a jury to want to give them a free trip to the gallows?
If they didn't want to enact it, but did want to win the affection of anyone stupid enough to take this seriously all the have to do is scream "I'm being censored! nobody can hear me!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not quite true. If the politician is "all talk" the constituents will notice and find someone else.
However, few (if any) of them actually read the language in these bills, so as long as there's proof the bill was submitted, the politician is living up to his claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It's theater plain and simple. They don't really want this bill to pass. They just want to use it for political brownie points."
It's the fundamental rule of political acclamation. When you have no arguments just raise your voice and look angry.
This bill is a talking point aimed to please an electorate which the shameless crooks in office believe to be a congregation of easily fooled village idiots. It's pure snake oil.
Unfortunately the shameless crooks in office probably have the right of it. They know full well since the last election that almost half the voting citizenry will accept anything as long as it sounds good to beer-sodden angry men and the person suggesting it has the magical (R) behind their name.
This isn't an issue with the politicians so much as it is an issue with half the voting population being entitled snowflakes desperately afraid of living in a world where even being white and male no longer protects you from the consequences of being a stupid and malicious asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pretty simple: the only thing that matters is whether you say the right things about limiting abortion, protecting gun rights, and stopping "the gay agenda" (to get elected) and doing whatever monied interests tell you to (to make it that far). Actual competence at lawmaking doesn't matter and might actually be a liability because it gets in the way of the "doing whatever monied interests tell you to" part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It needs to be renamed, Section 8.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gerrymandering. Lots and lots of gerrymandering. Also voter suppression and outright fraud in one case. Many of these guys have never had to win an fair election in their career, and they're generally more loyal to chinese pork companies then their own constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guarantee they would be the first to complain when platforms stopped removing hate speech against them that they don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We get called Nazis and White Supremacists an a minute by minute basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who aren’t white, straight, cisgender, male, and Christian get called (and treated) a lot worse. If your only complaint is about being called names you don’t like, feel grateful for that fact instead of hopeful for the same treatment that minority demographics of all kinds receive on a daily basis. You don’t want to be oppressed — no matter how much you desperately want to believe otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only a Nazi and White Supremacist would say are WORSE names!
First, STATE THREE WORSE.
Second, you just torched the memory of 6 million Jews. They believe the worst is a Nazi. You need to hear from the ADA, you little Nazi PUNK.
Obviously you just attacked your real targets by saying they're WORSE. So now you're openly defending Nazis and White Supremacists. Those are your true friends, huh? Thought so. You carry on too much to be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three ain’t enough, man; I’ll do five: n⸻r, k⸺e, f⸻t, r⸻d, and c⸺k. (If you need help figuring out what those words are: racial slur, anti-Semitic slur, anti-queer slur, ableist slur, and anti-Asian slur.)
The worst thing to be is a Nazi. The worst thing anyone can be called is a slur that demeans their dignity and erases their humanity. Being called a Nazi does neither, unless you’re a fucking Nazi who thinks being called exactly what you are is demeaning.
…th’fuck does the American Dental Association have to do with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"…th’fuck does the American Dental Association have to do with this?"
I think he meant the ADL. But given what he stands up to defend and try to deflect from, I'm not too surprised he has a dim view of the forces he's opposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, look, you propped up a strawman and used it as a false equivalence to call someone a nazi because he said that some groups gets called worse than nazis being called nazis. You are one stupid motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is something worse than a Nazi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A nazi apologist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"There is something worse than a Nazi?"
Yes. The guy who acts like a nazi, thinks like a nazi, aligns with a nazi, but when openly asked about it tries to weasel away from culpability.
There were only 12% of the german population who were national socialists and voted for Hitler. What made him dangerous wasn't those ideological fanatics in his party. It was every german who didn't approve but could accept. Every wealthy foreign businessman who was all-in doing good business with the nazis, helping them grow the army and tech they used to suppress europe - like Henry ford, Disney, and dozens of others.
The people who didn't wear the swastika but supported the people too ideologically confused to function in the real world. They were, in my mind, far worse. Because they gave what would just have been a gang of incompetent thugs the ability to exercise that thuggery over a slew of nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And overwhelming you would have been one of them. If you think you wouldn't have been you are just an arrogant ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its a comment forum. What do you want to fight about it lol. Trust me you would walk away the moment you saw me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a weird response. He told you to stop whining and you immediately tough guy up and say something about a physical fight? What is wrong with you. Stop whining, stop acting like you know everything (because you've made it clear you don't). Maybe educate yourself a bit and stop acting like such a jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their they've never heard "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", or they feel that using violence to suppress the voices of dissent is acceptable.
Neither casts them in a good light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because he woudn't hit a cripple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Getting called a Nazi...
Which is what happens when you align yourself with white supremacists and Nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Getting called a Nazi...
I bet he did nazi this coming...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"We get called Nazis and White Supremacists an a minute by minute basis."
At the end of the day liberals are only asking for their rights to be respected. The people usually being called nazis and white supremacists? Get called that because they ask for other people's rights to stop being respected.
So if you don't want that shoe to fit, may I suggest you stop acting like white supremacists and nazis?
Or at least stop pretending you aren't. Say what you like about Hitler but if you asked him straight away, looking him into the eye, why he was against black people claiming their right he'd be very open about him hating the lesser races and fearing they'd take away his lebensraum.
It's not that hard. If you stop acting like a douchebag then people will, as a whole, stop treating you like one.
If your first comment in a forum is a post about how George Floyd deserved being murdered on camera, or how the capitol rioters were somehow less bad then the BLM movement, or how all the right-wing violence is "antifa" then that is where you gave your game away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Other Foot
Hate speech is simply speech with which you disagree. If a website were censoring minorities, then you would cheer on this bill. Labeling something as hate speech is just a lazy attempt by websites for violating their own terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations, Koby — you’re on the side of forcing services such as Twitter to host speech containing the n-word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Other Foot
Why do you keep on insisting that you have a right to speak where you are not welcome? Will you next be insisting that people stay and listen to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Other Foot
Twitter is not the same as a blog. If I'm running a blog the purpose of the blog is not the comments section. If I ban someone from the comments section because their comments run contrary to the purpose of the blog I'm not over stepping my bounds. The comments section is ancillary to the blog. That is not twitter or any social media. Their purpose is to provide a space for other to create content. Sorry I dont make the rules. Yeah if I build and own a mall I'd really like unlimited authority over who can come in and out of that mall. However, since I'm in the 9th circuit. I don't have that much authority. I have some limited authority but I do not have the broad authority that the owner of a corporate office building would have.
But here is the freedom thing. I knew that when I built the mall. I was building a privately owned public space and I knew or should have known fell under that legal framework.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
This isn't the right analogy. When Twitter moderates, it isn't "keeping the person out of their public space." They are "kicking out the person who is disturbing the peace."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
As the owner of a mall in the 9th circuit I would like to say that the guy gathering signatures for a ballot initiative is "disturbing the peace" hell I find that "otherwise objectionable" but the law says no, and I knew or should have known that when I freely decided to build and own a mall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe that the fundamental purpose of government is to porrect the rights of the people from private infringement. That is why we created governments in the first place. It keep people from within the tribe from violating the rights of others and to protect our rights from other tribes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an answer.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I believe that the fundamental purpose of government is to porrect the rights of the people from private infringement"
That's strange, because your argument here seems to suggest that you think it's to force people to host others on their property even if their rights and business are being destroyed by private individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Twitter cannot rightly serve as a public square if it's constructed around the personal opinions of its makers." ~ Jack Dorsey 2018
If you get into the business of a public square be that a mall or a social network then yes you no longer have the right to infringe on the rights of others. You are acting like this framework of dealing competing rights does not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, so there’s the answer to my question: You do believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host.
Follow-up question, then: Do you believe the government should have the right to make you host all legally protected speech on an interactive web service that you own — be it a blog (via comments sections), a small phpBB forum, or a 100-person Mastodon instance — even if you don’t want to host, say, legally protected but offensive speech such as racial slurs, anti-Semitic propaganda, and references to the sexual proclivities of your mother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stephen, I think you've missed the point TomT alluded to earlier. To quote:
The point that TomT is missing is that signature gatherers are protected in this instance because they are espousing a political cause, not just disturbing the peace. So long as the gatherers are themselves not doing anything more than standing very near to the approachway to a building's door, they are considered peaceful, and thus they cannot be told to leave just because they have a particular political value that is at odds with the management/ownership of the building.
Now, TomT.... the point Stephen makes is that you have conflated your personal situation with the greater point of this discussion - Section 230 does nothing for you, or any other owners of private property such as malls, plazas, shopping centers, parking lots, etc. The very term that is often appreviated CDA should be a clue - Computer Decency Act... not "Mall Peacefulness In The Eyes Of The Owner Act". Section 230 does only one thing, and it does very, very well - to wit: If one is offended by a post, then one must seek redress from the actual offender, not from the carrier of that post.
Can you image, just for a moment, if your paperboy (do we even still have those?) were to be liable for bringing you bad news every morning? And that's the logical extension of what these anti-230 bills would come down to, attaching blame onto the nearest target, not the proper one, i.e. the original author of the offensive words. Of course, in today's crazily over-lawyered society we have the "sue 'em all and let the judge sort it out" mindset, so the paperboy won't be the only one the hot seat. Still, none of those intermediaries should've ever been subjected to a court proceeding in the first place, and that's where S230 comes in. At least in the online world.
As to the world of your mall? Sorry, can't help you with that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And if we passed a bill that said
"(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
"(3) The Mall and other spaces of social co-integration offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."
But had an admittedly poorly written clause that allowed reasonable regulation.
"(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the mall or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;"
Which allowed well lawyered corporations to stretch "otherwise objectionable" to a catch all that in practical effect defeats that in the previously stated finding and purpose of the bill then we would have a problem. The bill is void for over breadth as a clearly qualified immunity has been stretched to an unqualified immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Freedom of speech limits the governments ability to censor people speech. It does not impose any restrictions or requirement on private corporations, beyond removal and notification for certain illegal content, like child porn. What you are asking for goes against the constitution, in that is is a speech control measure, censoring the speech of others when they say we do not do that here.
Facebook, Twitter etc. moderate with one objective, and that is to maximize their user base, and obviously act against speech that would drive more users from the platform than it attracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The first Amendment protects an existing freedom of speech from government infringement. It did not create freedom of speech.
The very purpose for the existence of government is to protect existing the rights from private infringement. Its why we form governments in the first place. The problem of course is that government itself eventually infringes on the rights it was created to protect.
The problem with big "L" Libertarians is that they are usually sophists who will read Ayn Rand but they don't read much founding books like Wealth of Nations or John Locke. They completely forget, or probably don't even know, that the government exists to protect individual rights from private infringement. So we get people like you who think the government cant and should do anything to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It also exists to settle disputes when those rights come into conflict. Does your right to speak freely give you the right to force a private property owner into associating with your speech? Does your right of association give a racist fuckwit who owns a public accomodation business the right to refuse serving Black people because of the color of their skin? And in both situations, whose rights truly deserve more deference? Government exists to solve such questions.
We all compromise our rights in some way when we enter the public sphere. You can believe in whatever religion we want, but you can’t go beating people upside the head with your holy book and force them to believe what you believe. (The reverse holds true, too.) Only through such compromises do we create a society that functions well enough for all people.
And that means you don’t get to force speech upon the private property of others, including social media services, no matter how much you might want to do that. If you think the government can’t and shouldn’t do anything to stop that, that’s your problem. And I can’t fix that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ron Wyden & Chris Cox have repeatedly said that the law functions exactly as intended. "Otherwise objectionable" (and "good faith") is context-based, and what you want is rules for what is "otherwise objectionable" which in the end infringes on the first amendment.
When even judges who gets cases about CDA 230 say "nope, that's not how it works", your "well lawyered corporations" argument gets very old fast.
And I have to ask, these "corporations", what do you think they have qualified immunity against?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which allowed well lawyered corporations to stretch "otherwise objectionable" to a catch all that in practical effect defeats that in the previously stated finding and purpose of the bill then we would have a problem. The bill is void for over breadth as a clearly qualified immunity has been stretched to an unqualified immunity.
Why do so many of you ignorant fucking fools focus in on "otherwise objectionable" from (c)(2) when it almost never shows up in any 230 case that you're mad about.
The very few (c)(2) cases have not been about traditional moderation. The problem is not "otherwise objectionable" and it's truly insane that you showed up here calling me ignorant and then drop that turd.
Educate yourself Tom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
bzzzt, wrong. also, no one can "get into the business of being a public square" unless they own a town government with commons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you get into the business of a public square be that a mall or a social network..."
Neither of which is a public square.
It is not possible - under any law, philosophy, or creed - to get "into the business" of a public square. The very definition of a such is that it is owned by the public.
Which leads us right back to why 1A prevents government from forbidding a person speech.
Privately owned businesses aren't public squares no matter how popular they become. The only action government should be compelled to take about one private platform becoming too popular is to encourage and incentivize competition, Nothing else.
Because if government decides the private platform is a public then that falls under seizing the means of production for the common good which is the quintessential argument seen only in pure marxism - and in national socialism.
Everyone advocating for such has just tossed the nazi or communist argument. And when they get called on that they do their damnedest best to pretend they never made that claim.
So, "Tom T", now that you've tossed the core "free speech" argument of mein kampf/the communist manifesto into the debate, would you care to state which of these two philosophies you adhere to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can say its not possible but you are just speaking out of your ass. This is something that is stare decicis private public spaces do exist shopping malls being the best example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Malls aren't public spaces. They are private property open to the public, but it seems the distinction is lost on you.
And even the Pruneyard decision you use as an argument says that a mall isn't a public space since it narrowly defines what's allowed and not. It essentially says that some free speech is allowed in a mall as long as the mall have employed reasonable rules to handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And further decisions have narrowed that ruling, such that it applies only to (quoting Wikipedia here):
And no such equivalent of those “common areas” exist on Twitter or other social media sites, so citing Pruneyard in an attempt to limit/destroy the ability of social media services to moderate speech is…misguided, at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By denying other the right to protect themselves from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
The Ninth Circuit says you remain completely full of bullshit as always, Tom T:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
As always? I just got here. Your rhetorical hyperbole is asinine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
If you don't like the reputation as a pathological liar you're building, then why do you keep repeating debunked lies with nearly every post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
The 9th circuit is speaking out of both sides of its mount because the 9th circuit is where the Pruneyard decision is most active. Where the US supreme court held that students exercise of free speech did not violate the property owner's 5th Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Yeah if I build and own a mall I'd really like unlimited authority over who can come in and out of that mall. However, since I'm in the 9th circuit. I don't have that much authority. I have some limited authority but I do not have the broad authority that the owner of a corporate office building would have.
Uh oh. Looks like someone has misread Pruneyard and the subsequent rulings that have limited it massively. It never said what you think it said, and today it does not mean what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Actually, Prune Yard [v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74] is more widely applicable than the US 9th Circuit. It should apply across the nation, so that any state could impose access requirements that, depending on their nature, may not be deemed a compensable taking. In other words, other states are free to enact, either through constitution or statute, id at 79, requirements similar to those found in Article 1 Sections 2..3, California Constitution, id at 81.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
If I'm running a blog the purpose of the blog is not the comments section.
Is this in the 'International Consortium on Blogs" guidance document?
Or are you just making shit up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
I was building a privately owned public space and I knew or should have known fell under that legal framework.
Would you kick habitual shoplifters out of said mall?
Or would you let them continue to steal from the stores because freeze peach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
"If I'm running a blog the purpose of the blog is not the comments section"
It's not... which is why section 230 protects you from liability for the comments posted while still allowing you to be held liable for what you wrote yourself.
"Their purpose is to provide a space for other to create content"
Yes, and if you wrote something offensive on your blog, people would be forced to go after you for what you said, and not whatever poor sod whose property you chose to host it on.
"Yeah if I build and own a mall I'd really like unlimited authority over who can come in and out of that mall"
You're saying that mall security are not allowed to kick anyone out?
"I was building a privately owned public space and I knew or should have known fell under that legal framework."
The legal framework being that you can kick assholes out for being assholes and face no repercussions unless it can be proven you really did so because they were black/gay/whatever.
You seem to be supporting the current section 230 rules while thinking that you're arguing something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Low IQs like you always reduced the argument to absurdity. "Kicking out assholes" when the real issues have always been far more complex and nuanced. The issue in the Pruneyard wasn't assholes it was kids gathering signatures at the height of the Arab-Isreali Wars to protest "Zionism." Now while I may not agree with the students on zionism they were hardly being "assholes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
"Low IQs like you always reduced the argument to absurdity."
No, that would be the idiot who immediately went to personal attacks (and, what a shock, anti-semetism) when he couldn't address a single thing said in my post.
Reality is too hard for you, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Furthermore, its low IQ people like that make it a necessity that we must all defended Nazi's right to march through Skokie. Because if we don't you will reduce everyone to the level where you believe rights no longer apply 'just assholes.'
'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
No, I'm trying to allow people to kick Nazis out, you're the one demanding they be allowed to seize private property without the property owner having the right to kick them out.
Think about it for a moment - you're spouting anti-semitic nonsense while demanding Nazis be allowed to use any property they wish for their propaganda - and you say you think you're fighting against the Nazis? Please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
No you are engaging in reduction to absurdity to allow them to kick anyone out.
And what anti-semitic nonsense have I spouted. Look at what you are doing. You are now making a false claim that I have spouted anti-semitic nonsense as an excuse to stifle my speech.
You have reflexifly tried to equate me to a nazi so you an infringe on my free speech. You are doing exactly what I accused you of.
"you will reduce everyone to the level where you believe rights no longer apply 'just assholes.''
Understand. You are an evil person. You are an authoritarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they’re not. Even Pruneyard doesn’t establish malls to be “public spaces” in the sense that they’re owned by the public/the government. And so long as malls remain private property (which they are), they can kick out anyone for any reason that doesn’t violate the law. Kicking someone out for their speech generally doesn’t violate the law; that someone has no guaranteed legal right to use that private property as a personal soapbox (the now-narrowed Pruneyard ruling notwithstanding).
This is why I keep asking you about the government forcing speech onto private property that the owners of said property don’t want to host: If you’re going to claim that the government can do it to malls, that logic can thus apply to all private property — including the privately owned servers which house services such as Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"they can kick out anyone for any reason that doesn’t violate the law"
Thanks for proving the point. In the case of Pruneyard there was and is a law. In that case its in the California Constitution. In fact many states have laws that force private property owners to respect the free speech rights of their customers.
What Pruneyard was rule that such laws do not amount to a 5th Amendment violation of the property owners rights. This makes Mikes fundamental argument Moot. Its why he, you and everyone exaggerates the degree that Pruneyard has been "neutered" by lower courts. Its not only a landmark decision on this issue its the decision on this issue and its a giant albatross around your neck and you know it. So rather than address it you choose to lie about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pruneyard has been scaled back extensively, such that only areas within a mall that could be considered “public spaces” are covered by the decision. It doesn’t apply to all spaces within a mall, which — even with Pruneyard in play — is still privately owned property.
And FYI: No state has a law that compels the owners of any kind of private property to host all legally protected speech. Such a law violate the Fifth Amendment as well the First (in re: freedom of association). Pruneyard may force a mall to allow protestors do their thing in areas deemed “public spaces”, but it doesn’t compel mall owners to let protestors do their thing everywhere in the mall. And it doesn’t compel any other owner of commercial private property to host speech against their will.
But if you think otherwise, hey, go into a Black-owned business in California and shout the n-word. I’m sure Pruneyard will protect you…if it actually gives you the right you think it does to tell the business owner that they can’t kick you out because Free Speech™.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
"And what anti-semitic nonsense have I spouted"
I'm sure you understand the references you made in the post I was replying to. If not, you really want to read up on the subject, it doesn't paint you in a good light.
"You have reflexifly tried to equate me to a nazi"
Yes, that tends to happen when people start referencing the Protocols.
"so you an infringe on my free speech"
It is impossible for me to infring on your free speech since I am not an agent of the government. All I have done is exercise my own free speech in response to you.
Why are you scared of others having the right to free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
How the fuck are we doing that? By troll-voting your comment such that people have to click an extra fucking time to see your stupid comment?
If you think that's censorship, you really live the most privileged life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Uh, Costco and other membership clubs have terms of service for physical spaces, and violating those terms can absolutely get you kicked out. Virtual spaces having those same rights isn't some magic exception, it's a logical extension of an uncontroversial rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
That commenter has been fed some disinformation by the moron corner of the internet, believing that the Pruneyard decision means a lot more than it actually means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
It does where I live. I'm afraid you are confusing that whole different circuits issue. The Supreme Court has yet to confirm any decisions that neutered Pruneyard so what is in effect is based on where you live.
I'm sure as this think tank genius you understand that a random circuit or district ruling does not become stare decisis for the entire nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
It does where I live. I'm afraid you are confusing that whole different circuits issue.
Lol. You come into my house and claim I don't know what I'm talking about? You've now done that multiple times. You should maybe educate yourself.
Pruneyard is considered quite limited specifically to the facts of Pruneyard in the 9th Circuit. Multiple follow up cases in California trimmed back Pruneyard's holding such that it's difficult these days to find a case in which Pruneyard does apply.
More importantly, the Supreme Court's ruling in Halleck almost certainly takes precedence with regards to the internet, and if a Pruneyard like case came before the Supreme Court, Halleck would likely succeed (I mean it was just decided a couple years ago by Kavanaugh).
So, sure, Pruneyard still exists, but it is not nearly as broad as you pretend it to be, and the idea that you can shift it to the internet is... not likely to work.
And next time, jackass, don't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. Because I will make you look foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
You are missing the entire point of Pruneyard. Makes it clear that the state can force private spaces to respect the rights of patrons. Doing so does not amount to a 5th Amendment violation. If this was not the case much of the Civil Rights Code would be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
This is the second time you've mixed up the 1st and 5th amendments. You are not a serious person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
The Pruneyard decision which is still in full effect in many parts of the country despite what you may like to claim, made it clear that its perfectly constitutional for local governments, states, and even the federal government to pass laws respecting the rights on individuals on private property and that such laws did not amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property under the 5th Amendment.
That principle is still very much in effect nationally and makes most of the arguments you make on this entire page moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no: Under that logic, do you believe the government should have the legal right to prevent you from kicking someone out of your home for saying things you don’t want said on your private property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Asked and answered in Pruneyard. Legally forcing private entities to respect others rights even on private entitles property does not amount not a 5th Amendment violation. It was a unanimous decision BTW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an answer.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to prevent you from kicking someone out of your home for saying things you don’t want said on your private property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My home is not a public square.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither is Twitter.
Also, not an answer.
Also also, an earlier comment of your seems to suggest your answer, but I will ask again for clarification’s sake — especially now that you can’t hide behind the “Twitter is a public square” nonsense.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to prevent you from kicking someone out of your home for saying things you don’t want said on your private property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not answering you because its a reduction to absurdity trap where you will treat a private residence the same as a shopping mall
Your question is disingenuous, shallow, and deceitful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn’t, and I’ll tell you why.
You seem to believe the government can compel private property owners into hosting speech they otherwise wouldn’t host. Pruneyard’s since-narrowed contexts aside, malls are private property — and yet you still seem to believe the government can force malls to host speakers of all kinds.
If a mall is private property, and a private residence is private property, extending your belief in government-compelled speech from one to the other isn’t a huge leap in logic. It is about asking whether you believe the government can make you, the owner of private property, host speech on said property (and not on anything deemed public property that might sit next to your private property).
You can’t logically argue that the government can compel one kind of private property to host speech and can’t do the same for another. It’s an all-or-nothing game. And since Twitter and its ilk are privately owned services, you must extend your meatspace logic into cyberspace.
So I will ask you again, this time in the more generalized sense: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to prevent you from kicking someone off of private property you own for saying things you don’t want said on your property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're still too chicken to answer a simple question. Why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Asked and answered in Pruneyard..."
Another question was asked and answered. You don't get to extend the answer to a question not relevant to the issue at hand to resolve the issue at hand.
I take it you are still either confused about the difference between *public property and private.
Or, as is usually the case with people trying to conflate the issue, they don't care about the reality because they're only in it to push the narrative where a bar or platform owner can't evict the nazis heiling in the corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
So as far as your mall is concerned, what do you do with shoplifters? You can't take away their right to use a public space just because they're a nuisance to the stores.
How will they get their message out if they're banned from the mall?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Actually have a close friend who had this exact problem, he ran security at a downtown mall. The gang at the mall lawyered up and a lot of i's had to be dotted and t's had to be crossed because of the legal issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Like they accused someone of something specific and didn't have evidence to back it up?
Because cops will forcibly make you sign a tresspass notice at the request of a property owner with little issue. (Not that this is always correct behavior.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Cool story bro.
Then what happened? They got let back in because getting kicked out stifled their ability to freeze peach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Under Prune Yard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (Jun 1980), you may have to look to state law to see if there are greater protections given to the shoplifter's speech than are provided under the First Amendment. Because, while the First Amendment does not require the shopping center to host petition gatherers, the states may impose such requirements without them necessarily being a compensable taking. Id at 81.
Chances are pretty good that the state will let you put them out, as their activity is incompatible with the purpose of the shopping center. But you should talk to a lawyer licensed in your state if you have a problem. There may even be state laws specifically aimed at shoplifters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
The key issue in the Costco case which BTW is not stare decicis for whole nation was that COSTCO didn't have the kind of social openness of a shopping mall. I think you would have a hard time applying that decision to SOCIAL media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
You mean the kind of "social" media where you have to create an account and agree to conditions in order to post anything?
You might be able to craft an argument in some jurisdictions in VERY specific circumstances where a website is completely open to any person at any time with no signup. But just crafting that argument is still a long way from winning a court case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
COSTCO tried to make the whole member and member agreement that you are trying to make but the court pretty much dismissed that out of hand. What mattered in the decision was how the business functioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
"I think you would have a hard time applying that decision to SOCIAL media."
Social media. The analogy of which in the real world would be you agreeing to follow a certain set of rules before you were allowed in. The equivalent of the bar where the rules are clearly written before you enter.
You'd have to be dysfunctional at a clinical level not to be able to understand how this works. And yet we keep seeing randos showing up trying to peddle a contrary assertion, most of whom we can directly link to Stormfront or various forms of bigotry.
You should probably realize that by now even trying to push the idea that popularity will turn a private space into a public one has become a clear tell that the person pushing that idea is a bigot who wants to not get thrown out of social platforms for using the N-word or lying about BLM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
And it falls flat on its face. COSTCO tried making that argument and it went no where with the court. What mattered was how COSTCO functioned, it was not a public square like a shopping mall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A shopping mall isn’t a public square, either. It is privately owned commercial retail space. That Pruneyard (and subsequent rulings involving *Pruneyard) ruled that narrowly limited parts of those malls may be treated as public squares for purposes of law(suits) doesn’t change the underlying fact that those malls are still owned by private entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
A mall isn't a public square, and the the case-law for Pruneyard actually states this. The case-law specifically says that the Pruneyard decision is only relevant to some types of common areas in a mall and for some very narrow types of free-speech activities, and this only applies to certain types of malls in California.
And just like on a social media platform, if you don't behave in a mall you will be kicked out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
So let me get this straight. Facebook and Comcast are so similar they should be regulated in the same way (a comment you made on another story). But Twitter and blogs are so different that the same regulations could not reasonably apply to both. Is that about right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Other Foot
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Other Foot
If a website were censoring minorities, then you would cheer on this bill.
That's right, Bucko. Minorities are a protected class.
But butthurt 'conservatives' who are constantly portraying themselves as 'victims' because they can't user derogatory terms to refer to folks of color on private property?
Yeah, those fucking morons aren't a protected class.
Now I'm sure you don't appreciate me referring to you people as 'fucking morons,' despite consistently living up to the label - but the community & TechDirt are free to flag this comment into oblivion if they see fit. The only difference is that you won't see me whining on here like the complainers you are.
Poor, poor bigoted morons - when will your class ever catch a break?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Other Foot
They are in California, political discrimination is illegal under California Civil Rights Code. Not that California enforces its laws against other leftists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being called 'butthurt conservatives' or 'fucking morons' isn't political discrimination, it's an opinion someone expresses.
Anyway, the law(s) you refer to are specifically for public services/accommodations etc and employer/employee interactions and are totally unrelated to what happens on the internet/social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Oh look, yet another law you've decided to blatantly lie about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Other Foot
Hate speech is simply speech with which you disagree.
Okay, let's go with that. Why do you think anyone should be forced to host speech with which they disagree?
Why are you okay with compelled speech against the private property rights of the forum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Other Foot
Koby, attacking the strawmen he perceives in this thread for opinions he imagined in response to a section 230 that doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's because, while they were dog catchers, they weren't tested for basic legal literacy.
Come to think of it, "basic legal literacy" is not a requirement to hold office. More's the pity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not a dog whistle, that's a bullhorn
A social media website may not utilize a user's alleged hate speech as a basis for justification or as a defense to an action under this section
Nice of them to make crystal clear who they're playing for and what they're looking to protect I guess. This may be performative garbage but I'll give them one thing, they are at least more honest about protecting bigots from consequences for their actions than the other politicians who've tried this stunt and those who defend those attempts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public!
Simple short answer: because corporations will soon RULE.
Not just "conservatives", but after a bit more entrenching power, ALL SPEECH. -- YOU, for instance, already have to abide by AdSense's rules! Yet you continue to advocate corporate control, have bigger goal so your own tiny site doesn't matter.
Corporations do NOT have "rights" because they're NOT individuals as spec'd in the Constitution, but are LEGAL FICTIONS that are to SERVE The Public, NOT RULE OVER IT.
The Public has allowable speech rules already worked out by OUR Supreme Court, NOT according to rules made by a few boy billionaires and the masnicks who adore them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public!
Don't claim individuals can get another host: the major corporations have already exhibited working together to not just "de-platform" Alex Jones, but to remove his advertising income streams, AND even inhibit his banking.
You simply advocate a new and more comprehensive form of fascism, which is termed corporatism.
By the way, ONLY S230 -- statute -- empowers this degree of corporate control, so it IS the government inflicting it on us.
And clearly most everyone, from New York Times to Ron Paul, see the practical effects of now and where inevitably leads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The First Amendment’s protection of the freedoms of expression and association say “hello, you misinformed fool”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think his argument is: the first amendment empowers people to be "abused" by property owners while on the property owners property.
Which is a pretty crazy thing to say. But note quite the craziest I've seen lately :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public!
Whew! The random "filter" just would NOT let that go in until moved the now first sentence from the subject line!
Explain that. What word is ANY degree objectionable when in the subject line, but NOT in the body?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s not the words, it’s the fact that you keep submitting your comments over and over and over and over and over. Why, it’s almost as if the spamfilter thinks you’re a spammer. Imagine that~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public
Explain that.
This is a teachable moment.
Consider for just a minute that it's not the words, but the fact that you're a spamming asshole.
What you're doing is what assholes like you do to get yourselves thrown off of social media - you act like assholes. It's not the words, you're just a bunch of headstrong jerks that just repeat the same shit over and over again, as if somehow repetition turns bullshit into facts.
I certainly hope this helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public
People report you immediately for being an ass. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public!
I feel like there was an article that addressed that not too long ago... and several articles here on TD that bascially prove the opposite of this. Grats on approaching an amazing level of incorrectness: I don't think I could stuff that much wrongness in a single post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public
"I don't think I could stuff that much wrongness in a single post."
Not many could. Yet our old Baghdad Bob consistently pushes more falsehood in every single paragraph than mere language should be able to contain. It appears to be his idiot savant speciality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public!
As churches are corporations, does that mean they should let anyone preach to their congregation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public!
NOT according to rules made by a few boy billionaires and the masnicks who adore them.
You could always NOT use their services. But then what would you whiners have to be victims of then?
You'd have to find something different to complain about. That's alot of work - creating a problem that involves forcing others to bend to your whims while bitching about your freedumbs.
Or as I like to call it, your right to be secure in other people's houses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Public
We already have laws about that. There have to be viable alternatives under anti-trust law. If there isn't, which is the case with social media, a greater weight is put on monopolies/oligopolies to respect the rights of their consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Pu
Lets start listing,
Myspace
Gab
Parler
Mastodon Instances
MeWe
BitChute
Rumble
Dailymotion
...
I am sure other people can add to the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if you insist!
…anyone else got any other sites to add?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think freenode qualifies (if discord does)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Infowars
Stormfront
Free Republic
8kun
the sites that Trump and the My Pillow guy are setting up
Who am I kidding, the people who generally get themselves kicked off Twitter already have accounts at these sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and you can remove Voat from that list - they are now deceased due to lack of funding. Not even the people who went there wanted to support them.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/reddit-clone-voat-home-to-hate-speech-and-qanon-ha s-shut-down/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And their market share is what? Monopolies under law are not a literal definition of monopoly. What matters is market power. Neither Bell Telephone or Standard Oil had the kind of market power big tech has today. It isn't even close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that why you keep posting nonsense here (with copious amounts of insults, and probably other slurs, but TBH I couldn't be bothered to read ALL of your posts here)? And now you've been silenced, and nobody can hear you? not even your neighbors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irrelevant. No one is guaranteed an audience (or access to an audience) by the First Amendment, Section 230, Pruneyard, anti-trust law, or literally any other law, statute, or “common law” court precedent on the books anywhere in the United goddamned States. So long as competitors exist to “Big Tech”, their size doesn’t matter.
And really, we can whittle the complaints about “Big Tech” and “censorship” down to that one issue: someone losing access to a big audience (potential or otherwise). Alex Jones was probably pissed off when he got banned from the major social media sites. But he had no legal entitlement to be on those sites. His own website was still around, too. For what reason should “Big Tech” be obligated by law — be forced by the government — to let him use their sites? For what reason should the government force a site like Twitter to give anyone, including Alex Jones, access to an audience? And for what reason should that reasoning not apply to every interactive web service that the U.S. government can thus force into hosting speech, regardless of the size of a given service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are sites that you can use, and to which you can attract an audience and others to join any discussion. Unless you want to force your speech onto others, the size of the platform should not matter, and that those like and if those where you are free to say what you want remain small, then you have measured the popularity of the speech that they carry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are no social media companies that can be considered to be monopolies if you look at how a monopoly is defined in law. Applying market share to define a social media platform as a monopoly is a futile exercise since using one platform doesn't stop anyone from using a handful of other platforms at the same time if they want, ie social media isn't a limited resource doled out by the biggest player at exorbitant prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure this sort of logical arguments are to this person like shining sunlight on a vampire.
This makes you a monster. For exposing them to a substance they are unable to tolerate.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am Legend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And their market share is what?
Their market share is not my fucking problem. If their market share is low, consider that perhaps it's because it attracts simple-minded spambots like yourself, and other 'conservatives.'
Sorry of those alternatives don't provide the audience you think you deserve. But I guess that's what happens when you conflate a right to speak with a right to force someone else to listen to your horseshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"And their market share is what?"
Why does that matter. Twitter and Facebook were once tiny irrelevant venues compared to the likes of MySpace. Then people started using them...
Instead of pretending the competition doesn't exist and whining that you be allowed back into the places you got yourself kicked out of, you people should start going to places that will have you. That's the free market solution and something you should be in favour of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MOAR social networks
Spacehey
Tiktok
Snapchat
That's just off the top of my head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Pu
Agreed. Which is why you people look like such idiots with the vast amount of choice you have.
You might not like the specific choices your own actions have left you with, but they are there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's YOU have to supply reason to put corps above Pu
So you've got a pretty good list to work from Tom...when are you going to just cop to the fact that this isn't about your rights, but your desire for an audience.
No law guarantees you that, no matter how much you think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That name looks like something pulled out of an internet word salad generator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they "market themselves as free, fair and open to all ideas"
i thought they generally marketed themselves as places to "connect with friends".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That bill title
Did they have a stroke writing it? Sadly it would probably be more coherent if they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its hard to be upset that these chucklefucks put their names on something that confirms they are illiterate assholes.
What should really worry us is their fawning target audience who lap this crap up, will accept any reasoning why the cancel culture killed the bill & not oh the Constitution, & will keep these ignorant idiots in office.
Still a pandemic going on.
Still mutations showing up.
Still dumbasses pretending its just like the flu & masks will kill you faster than the covid.
And they put time into this finely crafted piece of shit rather than doing something to actually help those they claim to represent & care about. But then they get the government they wanted, its a pity they no longer live in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remind me again.... Wasn't it those same fine, upstanding, fair-haired Republicans who said that Liberal Democrats are convinced that they can pick up a turd by the clean end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After seeing most of my posts now flagged I can see what this section is a gigantic circle jerk. You people should be ashamed of how mentally weak you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every accusation, a confession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your dialect is showing.
Around here we just say "people thought those comments/ideas were harassment/abusive and/or spamy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's why what happens to you on social media happens. No one wants to interact with an adult version of a petulant child. It's you, and everyone else like you.
There's a reason I don't have a profile or use Gab, Parler, and anywhere else where I'm guaranteed to find you right-wing nutcases. I don't like you. I think you guys are full of shit. I think that you don't do anything apart from whine about every single thing you see. You're perpetual victims. You're weak, despite
Stop blaming everyone else because you think it's your right to make people listen to your horseshit. It's your fault. If you don't like the answers you're getting, you might consider changing the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's see here....
One lone asshat comes into Mike's Place and spouts off with his view on things, some of them being of a personal nature. The vast majority of regular contributors respond, but not in kind - they are addressing the asshat's off-topic topic, and not bringing their own personal agendas into the matter.
Said asshat doubles down so often that Mike himself has to step in call the asshat out.... and it just gets even worse after that.
TomT, I tried at the beginning to give you a valid demonstration of where you went wrong, and I thought I was being friendly about it. But at more than a hundred(!!) posts, you still act like an asshat.... And then have the gall to call the rest of us wrong..... And you wonder why we're labeling you as a Troll slash asshat???
Take it for what it's worth, but from now on I will hit the Troll button automatically upon seeing your screen-name, as you have earned your way to the bottom of my Respect List.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's rich coming from a whiny bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you ever consider not whining like a thin-skinned petulant child, while presenting long-debunked lies about the way the world works? I find that acting like an informed adult works wonders for the way you're responded to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-Operative Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SMITR
Dang, that was quite a takedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill
Ah yes AAESSMCAPCSMWFCCPRS. Rolls right off the tongue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I'm pretty sure noone would want such brilliant religious speech ever to get censored:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFOCAATdxyE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can’t read either department
“cannot take down content for hate speech”
“A social media website may not utilize a user's alleged hate speech as a basis for justification or as a defense to an action under this section”
The key word is alleged!
The bill still sucks.
The 230 law sucks too.
The problem is two extremes calling out each other. Blocking, removing, etc… that’s censorship. Period
A privat company should have the right to censorship on their own platform.
However if they practice selective censorship they should have no legal protections against what they don’t censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it isn’t.
It’s “moderation”, not “censorship”. But keep crying wolf, dear boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You make it so easy:
“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information“
Or
“… the institution, system, or practice of censoring”
“ censor (Entry 1 of 2) a person who supervises conduct and morals”
Moderate ; “tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension”
Moderation is selective censorship by its very intention.
It’s not by itself right or wrong. And a private company can do as it wants.
I understand the intention of the section:
However I don see how allowing over a year of racially motivated violence to exist on public-facing platforms does not get moderation. How Calls for extremist actions and acts of terrorism are ignored.
Or how news stories in the public interest can be wiped from social media.
How any questioning of the federal government is considered treason when those same people spent 4 years questioning the government and distorting policy facts.
It stops being acceptable moderation and begins being intentional censorship when half the story (and half the population) is flat out wiped away.
Moderation is supposed to keep a middle ground. To eliminate extremes. Not to pick and choose.
What is happening with the likes of facebook and twitter is beyond moderation. It’s selective censorship. Agreeing with their choice doesn’t make a difference.
If a platform suddenly blocked Democrats from posting and put up notices saying that comments from Biden can’t be trusted because fox doesn’t agree or because he’s no longer capable of congruent mental functioning: you’d (likely based on stance) be screaming your head off.
I don’t care who’s being censored. As soon as it’s acceptable for one party to do it, it’s a danger to all others in the future.
All good he postings about 230 and platform moderation? Happy when it’s to a rival? Call it moderation if you want.
But if it were exactly identically implemented against the Biden administration and Democrats it would be censorship then, right?
Take off your blindfold any look at what could happen in the future.
There’s a fine line between maintaining moderation and slipping into censorship. And it’s understandably difficult to not choose a side when one does act for moderation.
Social media as a whole has gone over the line. And it must be held accountable for the damage it has done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Almost everything in your comment is wrong or ignorant. It's honestly so full of wrong that it's exhausting to think about correcting everyone of your ignorant assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Note: Lostinlodos is also a pathologically lying troll on Ars Technica too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It turns out finding a replacement for Richard Bennett hasn't been all that successful, but then who the hell would apply for a job to get one's ass kicked on two platforms instead of one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You want to back up your argument?
Provide verifiable examples of what social media companies have "moderated" because of "bias". Remember, if social media is biased, the examples should show the bias that one type of political posts are moderated more often than other types of political posts.
Every time someone like you come here and say that social media is biased against whatever, they can't provide one shred of evidence that it really is so.
I see where you are coming from, and for you those questions makes sense. But what you fail to grasp is that Biden isn't our "Dear Leader", if he says stupid shit, he will win stupid prizes. That you use Fox as your example is interesting too, since they just can't stop lying or just plain make shit up to drum up viewership from the rubes. I can't for my life fathom why anyone consider anything Fox says to be true, they have spewed forth so much crap the last 4 years that is so reality-divorced and contradictory I can only conclude that those believing it must be drooling idiots.
You bemoan the idea of fact-checks, can you point to one notice of fact-check that any social media have put up that's not true?
Explain how they have gone over the line, and I want verifiable facts, not "I think" or "I feel".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Twitter left up hundreds of pro protest posts all last summer. Claims of ‘burn the city to the ground’ if or than whatever. Even recently leaving up posts about violence regarding the outcome of the trike of a MN police officer.
They outright censored New York Post’s reporting on a VITAL news story about Hunter Biden at a time when many in the country were questioning Biden Family ties in foreign countries. Despite the fact that nobody fact-checked any outrageous false claims in 2016 about Trump ties.
What about the posts on Twitter about Chicago and New York riots that pinpointed where cops were and were not. A clearly dedicated group of looters posting police movements.
Posts are regular made of wild claims that the covid virus could have originated in another country other than China with zero scientific data to back it up. Those posts tend to come from Democratic members of the government or liberal leaning organisations. Never fact checked.
The President was banished from social media for questioning election integrity. There’s little use denying that 2020 has seen the highest percentage of fraud in any US election. Enough fraud to change the vote? Probably not. But fraud nonetheless. From backdating postage marks to illegal ballot harvesting practices to cases of outright voter fraud.
Yes, his rhetoric was wild and in targeted. And occasionally inaccurate though far from intentional lies.
Republican law-makers are regularly targeted for any statement of opinion yet for over 4 years, to the present day, “Democrats” claim Russian collusion with impunity. Despite it being proven false.
Many Democrats posted, and still have up, that Trump told his supporters and voters to “storm” the capital in an act of “insurrection”. A case that the unedited video footage proves a falsehood. No content notices on those posts.
Democrats regularly claimed through 2019 and 2020 and still have up, that Trump didn’t categorically denounce hate groups and one in particular. A falsehood with no content warnings.
The list of such cases is extremely long. Republican are wrong until proven right. Democrats are right until proven wrong, and in most cases still have impunity any way. That’s not moderation. It’s selective censorship.
I’m no fan of fox; beyond being happy there’s an alternative with mainstream access. Fox still kept actual journalism separate from news when most stations merged the two. Too much pro Christian nonsense. Too much focus on the negative. Etc.
But they exist as a choice. And they still allow both sides to open their mouths. That both sides regularly swallow their one feet is another issue all together.
Simply put I fear censorship. Both facebook and twitter have had plentiful moments of censorship, and fail to take action on lingering falsehood previously posted to their platforms. They allow the propagation of violent rhetoric.
I have a serious issue when a company or companies can selectively “moderate” with impunity.
My argument isn’t against them moderating or censoring. It’s doing so on the right and not the left. Or on the left and not the right.
If it’s purely selective enforcement it’s censorship.
Again I fully understand the premise of the law. I was online on Prodigy. And GE, an alpha tester with AOL. I was also a member of Compuserve, long enough to have been a Q-link subscriber when Q was still Quest on the box.
You can call open internet chaos but such lack of moderation kept Compuserve alive long after many other dial-up services went under. Either from user backlash, legal issues, or both.
In most cases such a hands-off approach kept people using the service. That’s something lost in today’s (anti-)”social” media platforms.
The first amendment exists to protect the rights of every speaker. Including trolls. None of us like trolls. But they have the right to speak. If you banish anti-topic trolls but keep for-topic trolls’ posts you’ve instituted censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strange that your comment has zero links in it. And I just recently had an eye exam too, so I know I would see them. Personally I don't see any reason to take any of your claims at face value at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should anyone take your word on this?
I asked earlier for verifiable facts for things you asserted, you didn't deliver. I can only conclude that you don't have facts, you only have "feels" that you are right, ie bullshit.
Btw, the first amendment also exists to protect the right of free association, forcing yourself onto others violate that, just like forcing unwanted speech to be carried on others private property violates their first amendment rights. If I try to force you to repeat everything I say and you say no, did you censor me?
It's really simple, your rights end where my begins, and if I happened to own a large social media platform, forcing me to carry speech I don't agree with violates my rights.
If you are so vested in the idea of having a social platform where anyone can say anything, look no farther than to 4chan or 8kun for what kind of cesspool that creates. You certainly aren't familiar with the worst people problem, and I can only suggest that you start your own social media platform that has no moderation, be prepared though, to wade through the worst of what humanity can offer though.
Just so you understand, both Twitter and Facebook have billions of active user per day. Can you tell us how to moderate content perfectly at that scale? It's not like Twitter, Google and Facebook have poured in inordinate amount of dollars in to it.
Ie, you don't believe in property owners having control of their property and how it's used (which is the logical conclusion of your "serious issue"), which means the the government have to step in and do it, aka sizing the means of production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rocky: "I want verifiable facts"
You: easily disproven nonsense without a single citation
Hmmm....
"The President was banished from social media for questioning election integrity"
No, he had his accounts removed because he repeatedly refused to follow the terms and conditions of the sites he used and kept making claims about fictional voter fraud that he was unable to prove in over 60 court appearances despite claiming to have evidence, and even then only after those claims helped inspire a violent attempt to overthrow democracy which killed several people and left many more injured.
It's weird how the position seems different when you include all the facts, isn't it?
"Republican are wrong until proven right. Democrats are right until proven wrong,"
Unless they're posting Parler, Gab, Fox, OANN, Stormfront, Free Republic or and other right-wing site that bans them the instant they state an opinion contrary to the hive mind.
What's fun about butthurt Republicans is that they are guilty of way more bias and censorship than mainstream sites. They just can't bear the fact that they're in minority when they crawl out of their echo chambers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like Parler?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They outright censored New York Post’s reporting on a VITAL news story about Hunter Biden at a time when many in the country were questioning Biden Family ties in foreign countries.
If the censorship was so destructive, how is it that you know about it? That's a question intended to bait you into realizing that social media isn't the Internet.
But I'm sure you already knew that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I missed the comment about the Hunter story while giggling over the rest of the idiocy...
Hey, @Lostinlodos, the story was not "censored", it was freely available in many other places including the NYP's own website. It was also comedy gold, with so many logical and factual inconsistencies and so little actual proof that it's hard to believe that people would be fooled by it for a moment.
Since you people were fooled despite all that, Twitter opted not to allow their property to be used as a free bullhorn to help spread the fake news. Which is their right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The first amendment exists to protect the rights of every speaker. Including trolls.
Uh-huh. Even spammers? Should a spammer be allowed to fill your timeline with spam because of free speech?
Or is that different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if all of your claims were true, it would not justify forcing anyone to host speech they do not want to host. Not to mention that you would have to repeal the 1st Amendment to get that to work. You know that right? Section 230 doesn't protect any actions that aren't also protected by 1A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sit down, child, and let an adult teach you something for once.
Under the definition you give, moderation can’t be censorship. Moderation doesn’t suppress speech — it merely tells the speaker they can’t/won’t be allowed to express that speech on a given platform. Twitter booting someone for saying the n-word doesn’t stop that someone from going to a whole other platform and saying the n-word there. If you can’t say it on Twitter but you can say it literally anywhere else (regardless of the social consequences), your speech hasn’t been suppressed.
In other words? Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech.
Picking a definition that doesn’t apply to the context of this discussion makes you look foolish — doubly so when you use a definition for the wrong form of a word. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the definitions of the verb form of moderate is “monitor (an internet forum or online discussion) for inappropriate or offensive content”.
No platform gets moderation 100% correct. (Read this site more often; it publishes a whole series of posts on the matter.) And some sites moderate what we colloquially call “hate speech” differently than others. So long as the speech is legal, government authorities can do nothing but monitor that speech. Don’t like that fact? You’ll need to do away with at least the First Amendment for any real change on that front. I doubt you’ll root for that.
The New York Post had a tweet deleted and (I think) had its account temporarily suspended by Twitter over the initial “Hunter Biden’s (alleged) laptop” story. Twitter never banned the account, users could discuss the story and share the link to the story, and the story itself never disappeared from the Post’s website. Now, how was that story “wiped from social media” again? 🤔
Your opinion of what constitutes “treason” is irrelevant to this discussion.
Nobody has an absolute, unassailable, irrefutable legal right to use any social media platform — Twitter, Gab, Reddit, whatever. If a given service wants to ban anyone who identifies as a supporter/voter/member of a given political party, that service can do so without legal fault. And if people want to then abandon that service for one that is less of a political circlejerk, they’re free to turn 360° and moonwalk to a new service while flipping off the old one.
Moderation is supposed to cultivate a community. A moderator who wants to cultivate a community where people of color don’t have to fear being driven off by racists is under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to allow racist language — no matter how benign — into that community for the sake of “neutrality”.
I’d probably agree with you…if Facebook and Twitter were censoring speech by actively suppressing it outside of Facebook and Twitter (respectively). But neither service has the power to control speech on platforms other than their own. They can’t censor me here, after all. And as you yourself said, “a private company can do as it wants” — so if Facebook wants to ban links to certain sites or certain words and phrases from being posted on Facebook, it has every right to do exactly that.
(That would normally lead into One Simple Question, but I’ll circle back to that later.)
Eh, more laughing that screaming. Such a service would be ridicule-worthy, regardless of size. (And i wouldn’t be surprised if at least one instance running Mastodon or a fork thereof actually does run on such bullshit.)
So long as the speech on that platform doesn’t cross a line into threats of imminent violence or provable defamation, the platform should have every right to allow whatever speech it wants, no matter how heinous (or ridiculous).
Sure you don’t~.
Parler went on a banning spree soon after a bunch of people with left-leaning political beliefs signed up and tested how fast Parler would ban them. While Parler can claim it was banning trolls, the fact that it largely went after “liberals” says a lot. And plenty of us here will maintain that Parler had the absolute right to make that dumbassed call.
Two things.
That rhetorical gimmick is bullshit.
Unless a service has the power to suppress speech outside of said service or tries to use the law as a means of suppressing speech, that line is far, far wider than you seem to believe.
And how do you propose holding it accountable without pissing all over the First Amendment and Section 230? Or, to ask that One Simple Question that nobody ever really wants to answer…
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
(By the way: Don’t bother replying if you can’t answer that One Simple Question. You won’t be worth taking seriously if you can’t do even that, and I’ve dealt with enough bullshit here in the past month to finally realize that obstinate, obtuse, intentionally ignorant cowards are no longer worth my time.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?”
No.
I support the right of a private organisation to conduct censorship as they please. A catholic church should no more have to carry porn than a porn site need to carry the Bible. Period.
“Nobody has an absolute, unassailable, irrefutable legal right to use any social media platform — Twitter, Gab, Reddit, whatever. If a given service wants to ban anyone who identifies as a supporter/voter/member of a given political party, that service can do so without legal fault. “
I agree. Again I’m not against that aspect.
My concern is quite simple.
When you ban one group for violations and ignore the violations of others, you should loose your protections.
Selective enforcement of rules is not the same thing.
If only people who crap on the floor are allowed in that’s selective access.
If only people who don’t crap on the floor are allowed in that’s selective access.
If only people who don’t crap on the floor are allowed in but one person decides to crap on the floor and gets away with it that’s a business choice
BUT
If you ban crappers at the outset, and allow three people to crap on the floor because you agree with /why/ they crap on the floor, and then ban someone from returning when they crap on the floor for a different reason… that’s selective enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you propose doing that without repealing the 1st Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three things.
I’m glad someone finally had the motherfucking testicular fortitude to answer the One Simple Question directly and on-point with no bullshit deflections, so kudos to you for that.
Moderation isn’t censorship, but keep crying “wolf” and see where that gets you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I support the right of a private organisation to conduct censorship as they please"
Then why are you complaining about people doing just that?
"Selective enforcement of rules is not the same thing."
It's fine everywhere else. If you get kicked out of a bar for ignoring the "no shoes no shirt no service" sign, it doesn't matter if the barmaid's boyfriend is sat at the bar wearing nothing but a pair of shorts. They can still kick you out, and they still reserve the right to entry even if you come back fully clothed.
"that’s selective enforcement"
...and their legal right. Now, you can get them for other reasons, such as allowing people to crap on floors in violation of health codes. But, how they enforce their own rules is their right, so long as they're not breaking any laws in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That appears to be rubbish. If I cannot selectively ban those whom I dislike from my property, then I have lost a valuable stick in the bundle of rights. It does not matter if my property is dirt or electrons, I maintain the right to bar people whom I dislike.
There is no reason to expect me to be fair. It is my property, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is a site can be biased, so how can you go on to say:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"That is a site can be biased, so how can you go on to say"
Easy, these people have never progressed past adolescence, where they think that anything that restricts their own actions is an affront to their rights, but anything that stops other people doing what they don't like is fair game. Adult concepts like compromise, empathy and compassion don't enter into the conversation as long as they get what they want. Add religion into the mix, and you have a real mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“ That is a site can be biased, so how can you go on to say:”
Easy. The difference is selective ACCESS vs selective ENFORCEMENT.
“Should a spammer be allowed to fill your timeline with spam because of free speech?”
Not sure what you mean by “timeline”. But yes. I simply delete spam. It’s an annoying part of free speech.
“ Note: Lostinlodos is also a pathologically lying troll on Ars Technica too.”
Canned response to those who disagree with your world view.
“That appears to be rubbish”
Again the key point is missed. I don’t care about banning. I care about selective enforcement of the rules.
The key to the protections is moderation. If you enforce banishment only some of the time it’s not moderation.
“ Unless they're posting Parler, Gab, Fox, OANN, Stormfront, Free Republic or and other right-wing site”
Parler did it’s legal duty to report criminal conduct to the FBI. Not sure what GAB is.
OAN(N), as far as I know, is a cable station, not a social site. Same with FOX. And there’s no evidence fox ever banned a democratic over posts, that I’ve read. I don’t know enough about OAN other than I assume you reference One America News.
No clue what stormfront is.
I thought free Republic was a newspaper. Or maybe it’s new Republic. Not sure there.
Lumping news sites in with social media is dirtying the waters of the discussion.
And the shirt vs shirtless aspect is intentionally misleading.
Banning or blocking one side while ignore the other violates the “ good faith” aspect of the law.
As far as Parler goes: I thought the problem was the OPPOSITE of banning. There’s no articles anywhere from reputable sources (NYT, FOX, WSJ, BBC…) discussing mass censorship of Democrats on parler. Not that I’ve come across.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter can open itself to the public and still get to choose who can be on the service depending on any factor that doesn’t violate the law (e.g., political affiliation). It can also choose what content it will and won’t host on the platform (e.g., lies about the 2020 U.S. presidential election results). The First Amendment protects those decisions under the right of association; Section 230 exists to prevent end runs around those rights.
Yes or no: Do you believe a service such as Twitter should have absolutely no legal right whatsoever to prevent spammers from using the service, regardless of the content of their spam?
Sure you don’t~.
Twitter is allowed to selectively enforce its rules. If it wants to ban White American users for saying the n-word but allow Black American users to continue posting the n-word, it has that absolute legal right. You should look into this thing called “context”.
Assume, for a moment, that a queer person refers to themselves using the f-word (the bad f-word, not “fuck”) as part of a self-depricating post. Now assume that a homophobic bigot uses the f-word in a reply to that same queer person. We can rightly assume that the bigot can, would, and should be banned from any service that doesn’t accept bigots. But then we get to another yes-or-no question: Should the queer person be banned for using that same word in a context that mirrors, say, Black people using the n-word (albeit with an –a instead of a hard –er) as a term of endearment?
Your answer seems to be that if the queer person isn’t banned, the service is unfair and should lose its legal liability protections because it decided to moderate based on context instead of a strict black-and-white no-quarter-given ruleset. If I’m wrong in that assumption, feel free to correct me. But something tells me I’m not.
Only if you think mentioning links to news sites — which can be moderated — is irrelevant to moderation, which I can assure you is not the case. Context, motherfucker: Do you know about it?
Ah, now we get to one of my favorite One Simple Questions.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel a White supremacist forum into hosting Black Lives Matter propaganda — and a Black Lives Matter form into hosting White supremacist propaganda? Keep in mind that both sets of propaganda, so long as they doesn’t veer into “illegal speech” territory, are absolutely 100% protected by law in the United States…and under a certain point of view, both sets are merely “two sides of a story” and the logic of your expressed opinion says blocking one violates the “good faith” aspect of Section 230. You can’t use “well obviously this is an exception” or some other similar deflection, either. You raised the point; you have to answer for it.
No, the “problem” (such as it is) is that Parler was apparently banning accounts that espoused left-wing/liberal/progressive views by saying such accounts were trolls and spammers. The site said that it would be a home to free speech of all stripes and would moderate only according to the First Amendment and FCC standards (whatever that means). Nobody really cared that Parler banned leftists; they were never seriously planning to use Parler anyway. The “problem” was the hypocrisy of a site saying it would protect free speech but later banning speech it didn’t like.
(And I’ll remind you now that Parler had, and still has, every legal right to moderate its site in exactly that fashion.)
That’s because (1) there was no censorship and (2) Parler was, is, and will always be a right-wing shitpit. The leftist troll brigade had their fun for a weekend or so, then promptly left Parler and returned to the far less shitty services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This appears to be rubbish. If I own a property, real or virtual, I am almost certain to exclude some people and admit others. Particularly, I expect to exclude those whom I do not like, while admitting those whom I do.
My property, my tastes. Unless you are claiming some sort of public accommodation being denied on the basis of some protected characteristic, the law generally backs me up.
By the same token, you may bar me from tromping through your living room in my muddy boots, heading to lessen the inventory in your beer fridge, simply because you do not like my views. You may bar me from your alt-right dial-up BBS for the same reason. You may even choose between Pravda and the NY Post, simply because you prefer one's views of property rights over the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My property, my tastes"
More importantly - the tastes of everyone else there, not just the owner.
Where I live there can be some interesting characters, but there was one specific woman who frequented the local bars who everyone pretty much hated. She'd be OK until she had a few drinks, but quickly got abusive, shouting angry screeds at people in the bar, starting fights, etc. She'd get kicked out, but something I noticed was that bars who would give her a second chance and let her in would lose customers. I saw on multiple occasions that people would start coming into the bar, notice she was sat there, turn around and walk straight back out. Not a word, they'd come in expecting to spend money, see her, then walk somewhere else without a word.
So, even if there were other customers who got drunk, apologised and never did the same thing again and so were allowed back regularly, it was absolutely right for a bar owner to just bar her permanently - even if that meant applying the right to admission unequally. Because neither the bar owner nor the regulars wanted her there.
Unless someone wants to argue that a bar needs to be forced to have people there that are materially and demonstrably losing them business, and why that's a positive for the bar, I don't see why this should be controversial online or offline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can’t read either department
Setting aside how moderation is not in fact censorship and conflating the two merely waters down the definition and impact of the word 'censorship' to the point it becomes insignificant congrats, you just proposed the very problem that 230 was designed to combat.
If moderation creates liability then sites will either shut down user submitted content as too risky, not moderate at all resulting in every platform turning into cesspits filled with trolls and other assholes that no-one outside of those groups actually wants to use or moderate insanely strictly and have extremely narrow categories of acceptable content, such that only the most tame and harmless content will be allowed and even then content will be pulled at the slightest hint of trouble. I would hope that I don't need to explain further why none of these would be better than what we've got currently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Twitter is allowed to selectively enforce its rules. If it wants to ban White American users for saying the n-word but allow Black American users to continue posting the n-word, it has that absolute legal right. You should look into this thing called “context”… If I’m wrong in that assumption, feel free to correct me.“
You are mistaken. What I’m referring to is banning a white man for using the word against a black man, but not banning a black man for using the term “cracker” or other richer terms against a white man.
I’m white. And have used the later term to refer to myself and others. I have never used the n word; as far as I can remember. And a black man using the term cracker is often /just/ as offensive to us as the reversal.
“Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel a White supremacist forum into hosting Black Lives Matter propaganda”
I already answered your his line of reasoning. No, I do not. As per my Bible—porn comment.
“ Sure you don’t~.”
I honestly don’t care about the act of the banning. I care about companies that selectively enforce their rules and then hide behind the law to support when they do enforce them.
I do NOT subscribe to ‘rules for thee, not for me’! When I see such actions I call it out.
Be it a Democrat going to a party maskless or a Republican doing the same.
Same for this issue of social media.
If WSJ or NYT reported directly (not parroting) on parler banning Dems I missed it. I apologise, and I’ll turn right around and point the finger at them too.
Though I refer to actual people making legitimate talking point discussions and not random trolling though.
If you break the rules you break the rules. I have no issue with it as long as everyone who breaks the rules is punished equally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I do NOT subscribe to ‘rules for thee, not for me’! When I see such actions I call it out."
That is your right. It's also the right of others to choose to not agree with you. It's your right to use a service that operates in a way you prefer. It is not your right to demand that the services you disagree with be forced to change their legal operation methods to comply with what you want.
"If WSJ or NYT reported directly (not parroting) on parler banning Dems I missed it"
Why does that even matter? I mean, honestly, if they haven't done such a report all it means is that there's more important stories just on covering Parler alone. There's no actual story in "right-wing honeypot kicks out people who disagree with them", unless you're trying to build the context of how hypocritical they are when they whine about being kicked off other sites.
"If you break the rules you break the rules."
Yes, and some people seem to get away with it more than others. Sometimes due to life just not being fair, sometimes because of problems with enforcement. The fix for that is not to demand that people lose the right to set rules on their own property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No racial slur against White people, regardless of context, is anywhere near as powerful a slur as the n-word — so if a service like Twitter doesn’t want to ban people for it, I’ve no issue with that. And FYI: I’m a White guy, so don’t come to me with some woe-is-my-Whiteness bullshit.
No. No, it is not. You can shrug off being called “cracker” just as easily as you can shrug off being called “honky”, “whitey”, or any other “anti-White” racial slur. They don’t have anywhere near the same kind of power, sting, and history of oppression and dehumanization as the n-word…or any other racial slur aimed at people of color, for that matter.
(Seriously, why do assholes like you seemingly want to be oppressed?)
And yet, you said “banning or blocking one side while ignore the other violates the ‘good faith’ aspect of the law”. How is it “good faith” to deny one “side” of an argument on racial justice a place on a platform like Twitter if that side is espousing legally protected yet horribly racist speech, regardless of how people feel about that speech? You’ve been going on and on and on about this “good faith” and “both sides” shit, but the moment you’re faced with a true test of your ideals, you drop them like a bad habit so you don’t sound racist.
Either your logic applies to all situations involving protected speech, no matter how offensive, or it doesn’t fucking apply at all. To wit…
They “hide behind the law” because the law explicitly allows them to selectively enforce their rules. The reason why is this thing you seem to keep fucking ignoring (perhaps intentionally): “context”.
(Sidenote: I bet you’re the kind of person who hates when someone escapes a criminal charge because of those pesky “technicalities” that are otherwise referred to as “violations of constitutional rights”.)
For the sake of a hypothetical, let’s say someone publishes on Twitter a video of police brutality that contains an officer yelling the n-word. Despite its obvious newsworthiness, the video still contains what Twitter would likely call “hate speech”. Should Twitter remove the video (and possibly reprimand the user) under the rules that ban hate speech from the service or leave the video up as a “newsworthy” exception to those rules?
Remember: Under your logic, Twitter cannot selectively enforce its own rules, so your answer must align with that logic. If it doesn’t, your logic — and the argument supported by that logic — is a complete load of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I care about companies that selectively enforce their rules and then hide behind the law to support when they do enforce them.
You've been filling this entire comment area with an awful lot of nonsense, but I'd like to respond to this point in particular, because you've raised a number of times, and it serves only to demonstrate your incredible level of ignorance about content moderation.
You are cherry picking examples of what you believe are "selective" enforcement. Even though it is true, as others have noted, that it is completely legal to enforce things selectively, there remain zero proof that the big social media companies do any such "selective" moderation (with the one exception of internal reports leaked from Facebook showing that if favors certain conservatives to avoid getting yelled at by Trumpists -- which again is Facebook's right).
However, from your examples, it seems you've bought into some myths and fairy tales told by silly people. When you are moderating hundreds of millions of billions of users of a social media platform there is NO WAY to do perfectly "fair" moderation for a long list of reasons. Let's go through just a few:
Scale. Either AI or human moderators needs to make judgment calls on millions of pieces of content every day, often with little time. It is literally impossible to expect a company to do the exact same thing in every single case or to enforce rules in the exact same way.
Subjectivity. So many ignorant people assume that content moderation is easy, and that it's obvious if something breaks a rule or not. It is not. Most cases involve a significant amount of subjectivity, and as such, different people viewing the same content will come down differently.
Context. Many ignorant people assume that you can just look at a single piece of content and decide if it breaks the rules or not, but that often ignores the context. Is the use of a bad word being used in jest? As satire? To report hatred from others? It is being used as an in-group point or pointed at those in power? Or is it being used to harass. All of that involves context. From the examples you've shared already it appears you don't understand context at all.
In other words, almost the very key point you keep making is wrong. So maybe stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick
[quote]outside of your echochamber ”[/quote]
Oh how quick the left is to stake claim.
I’m OMNI! Dumb idiot.
And spare me the TQIASP alphabet nonsense the left doesn’t comprehend in the first place.
You are straight
Gay
Or bi/omni
Any other term is a way to elevate someone above others. TQIASP… is nothing more than enhancing your personal position above and beyond preference.
My sexual taste doesn’t change the fact that a 40 year old with a dong doesn’t belong in a women’s bathroom. And a 40 year old with two holes has no business in the men’s room.
I do support age classes (pre-, teen, and adult) communal access. But such a position is difficult to implement. That has nothing to do with sex (there’s three, male, female, and hermaphrodite) or orientation (there’s three here too, straight, gay, or or both). And everything to do with getting past the 500CE mythological cloud people based stigmas.
So everyone can give up on the gay bashing examples.
Calling me a fag doesn’t bother me. Actually that’s because the American use specifically derives directly from the British slang for a cigarette or cigar. And uses it in Phalic context.
The fact that the left wants to pretend that racism doesn’t cut both ways IS and WILL remain an issue for many of us. Just because you have a mindset that’s some word is more painful or hatful than another doesn’t make your stance any more or less true than anything I posted here.
Cracker is a term of black supremacist hatred. Period. And I don’t give two shites of you personally find it less offensive than I do.
I’m an atheist. If I’m wrong screw it. “What would I do in heaven when all my best friends are down in hell?’
far more offensive than anything any BLM or AB member could ever say is the fact that people cling to that book of myth about some omnipotent cloud dude who couldn’t find the only two people on the planet.
I’m middle class, white, omni, and anti-religion. All very clearly document with 5 minutes of searchingly my 30+ years of online activity. I get religious hatred from my family. Gay bashing from other trump supporters. Fake nonsense ‘white privilege’ lectures from brainwashed lefties who live in mcmansions raking in 300k+ per year as politicians.
Spare me your CNMSNABC brainwashed bullshite!
Fact: Democrats used social sites for 4+ years to spread nonsense fake Russian collusion stories. To lie about Trump’s stance agains suprematist groups, a nonsense story made up by Clinton advisors. First to burry the treasonous acts involving her email use. Then to burry her part in the genocide Ukraine committed against Russians. And finally to turn attention away from Biden’s mental deficits due to early Alzheimer’s.
Fact: Democrats repeatedly used social media to spread the lie that Trump instituted insurrection when his video recorded and broadcast comments were literally “March peacefully” and “be heard”.
Fact. Throughout 2020 Democrats used social media to honour and support people using violent tactics to protest.
Fact: twitter made no move to stop looters in Chicago from using their platform to report police whereabouts and schedule looting raids. After dozens, or hundreds of reports such usage was happening.
Fact, the sitting President of the US had his account blocked for legitimately criticising election integrity. While the leaders of such dictatorships as Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and China maintain accounts spreading proven lies.
Fact: one of the top 5 news papers by distribution was banned just shy of the election for reporting the existence of an abandoned laptop belonging to a member of the Biden family that contained in incriminating materials.
Unfair laws are not just. The law fails here. It should be repealed. If you don’t like my opinion move on. I obviously won’t change your mind and there’s no chance you’ll change mine.
I didn’t reply to the comment about the police video because I don’t have an answer. You Put me in a cage based on my opinions (in general) and the reality of how this country’s laws are written.
I obviously can’t say enforcement is mandated at all times and point out that a headline as important as a member of a candidate’s family having illicit financial dealings should be allowed.
Personally I think cops should get MORE funding. Every cop should have a body camera on duty that can never be turned off. And that video should be multicast within 48 hours on the police website by law. Then twitter users have no concern posting video when they could link without violating twitter rules.
Ultimately don’t you dare preach to me about what is right and wrong. What is fair or not. And what constitutes bigotry and what doesn’t.
I’m sick and fn tired of both Republicans and Democrats Claiming to know and understand bigotry.
Black Lives Matter puts blacks above all other races. That’s racism. All lives matter. Go get run over by a train if you disagree.
Tax brackets punish people for being better at their job than others. A flat tax rate is fair. If you don’t agree with me go get run over …
I have no problem with social guarantees for those who are here legally. Running across the border and not waiting in line is against the law. Don’t agree go get…
The whole DMCA and CDA legislature is a pile of sewer sludge.
It all needs to be repealed and replaced.
Laws in this country are supposed to be fair.
Language and intent are very difficult to moderate
I AM a moderator at multiple tech sites. I also learned and speak international English.
Using the term cunt or fag anywhere outside of the United States is just common parlance. And a term like bloody could get me banned in the UK. If not fined. Where Americans don’t get it at all. Africans, and Asians cringe. And Australians laugh. B&B style. Hee hee: he said bloody!
I get it. But it appears too many are blind sheep followers rather than independent thinkers.
Saying it’s not fair and then justifying it isn’t a solution. It’s an excuse.
Broken law or broken axel. You fix it.
Nothing is going to get fixed when so many blindly say it doesn’t happen because their preferred member of Congress lied to them.
And when those with a semblance of self thought simply dismiss it as that’s the law…!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick
Oh how quick the left is to stake claim.
I'm not "the left" jackass.
You just proved my point. You're an idiot. The rest of your ignorant comment full of false claims proves it. I'm done with your idiocy. Go be an idiot somewhere else. No one wants you here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick
He's also lied about The civil war "States; rights, not racism!" The election "election law violations!" climate change "conspiracy to hide that it's not humanity's faulta!" and Net Neutrality "Zero rating gives you free data!"
Same as here, he has never once cited facts or logic to support his positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need to stop hating yourself for being queer. Maybe stop hanging around the kind of people who keep saying queer people are abominations who will go to Hell.
Also, GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick
So you want these people in the women's restroom:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Patricio_Manuel.jpg
https://media.npr. org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0636_slide-12de188956ce20fc73e56c1903f3c59e597b5818-s1100-c15.webp
htt ps://media3.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2019_13/2798536/190325-web19-oliver-knight-1160x768-ac-515p_479d e50b71650346b864e2da619fca8d.jpg
And you want to tell these ones they have to use the men's room:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/branded_news/117EE/production/_107026617_img_8250.jpg
https ://static.independent.co.uk/2021/03/17/20/GettyImages-1174655452.jpg?width=982&height=726&au to=webp&quality=75
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/07/11/multimedia/11xp-sampaio-pix1/11xp- sampaio-mediumSquareAt3X.jpg
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“They “hide behind the law” because the law explicitly allows them to selectively enforce their rules.”
And we’re back to the broken law.
I don’t know if there’s a solution but the situation isn’t currently fair.
What I want (zero censorship) and what is ideal in society (fair, neutral moderation, equal application of rules and laws) conflict.
I’m not flip flopping, I’m attempting to balance my own feelings vs what is realistically reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Four things.
Learn to use the reply function.
The law is working as intended, even if you think it unfair.
What you want is to violate the First Amendment by enforcing compelled association.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]