why is it that none of the cases that have actually been brought have survived a motion to dismiss?
Primarily it's Section 230, with judges dismissing prior to establishing whether the corporations have made bad faith moderation choices based upon politics and not their own rules. That's why many people are advocating for 230 reform.
and now you're saying that such moderation is totally fine if it's explicitly stated in advance.
If they allow all political speech, platforms ought not be able to go back and begin banning those with whom they disagree. Post the bias up front, or else let it slide. I view the selective enforcement, demonetization, and shadow banning practices of social media to be demonstrative of their unwritten bias.
Commercial speech has been regulated, particularly on determining where commercial speech can occur, as well as compelling certain speech. Government has mandated nutrition labels. Government has also been able to control where tobacco advertisements can be shown. Clearly, the case that you have sited would permit a state to be able to restrict commercial spam by demonstrating a compelling state interest.
Sure, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make bringing civil rights law into the discussion. "Political Conservative" is not a protected class.
But they could. And some states have done so in certain areas, such as California with regards to employment.
And even if it was, there's no proof that this has happened with regard to "anti-conservative bias."
That's fine. Just let the corporations issue an official reason for a ban, and then let there be a civil trial.
couldn't someone of a different political affiliation sign up on that service, and the service be forced to accommodate them
I've mentioned this before, that it would be ideal if social media companies would just be up-front. The billboard is about as up-front as could be, and everyone on the service would be subject to the same rules. In this case, that anyone not agreeing with that particular affiliation is banned. The trick with social media companies is that they decide their bias on the fly. During congressional hearings, they claim to be neutral, but then the SJWs act arbitrarily in practice. If a social media company were to be up-front about it and post something like "we hate Republicans, and we will ban them", I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I look at techdirt as an opinion blog site with a forum section. It is the operator's choice whether they want to remove comments based on political preference instead of their own rules and assume publication liability.
That sentence doesn't make any sense at all, regardless how you parse it it's just gobbledygook.
Most social media companies use section 230 to position speech that is posted by its users as not its own. The corporation then has a choice. 1.) accept it as its speech anyhow. This makes the company a publisher. They can fully control this type of speech, including censoring it, but they also become legally liable for it. Option 2.) maintain that the speech is not theirs, and they become a platform. You cannot claim that government is abridging your speech, if you are not the one engaged in the speech.
Why? If I run a forum where political speech is forbidden, does that mean I still have to allow it?
I personally believe that you ought to be allowed such a thing, as long as you post that rule up front, and you have equal enforcement. If there is unequal enforcement, however, that should be a cause for action.
Why do you want to elevate political speech to protected speech
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
What about the right of association? I can simply choose to not let that person around my stuff.
The government has already passed civil rights laws stating that business cannot act with impunity regarding right of association, which is a good thing. While business can impose rules for EVERYONE to follow equally, businesses have been found guilty of civil rights violations when they treat others unequally. And many woke corporations fear the possibility of lawsuits based on demonstration of unequal treatment.
Primarily, it's not about discussions. On social media, folks are able to create an account and post content, and others can choose whether to follow and receive that content. If anyone finds speech offensive, they are free to stop following that account. Meanwhile, the SJWs don't want to moderate discussion; rather, it is the original message that they want to delete, or perhaps they want to deplatform the entire account out of spite. The original message must be left alone. Let the users themselves decide if they want to continue receiving it.
I'm unaware of any laws that specifically outlaw it. However, commercial speech is not subject to first amendment protections, and has been the subject of government regulation. Laws could be crafted to permit its removal by site operators.
Also, what the hell does: "limit liability protections for moderation of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment" mean?
It means that if you don't claim someone else's speech as your own, then you similarly can't claim first amendment protection. Social media companies will need to choose between being a platform, or being a publisher. There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others. Moderation must be limited to removing things such as obscenity or commercial spam, and leave political speech alone.
I'm not saying here that I agree that internet anonymity should end, but I can see a few things from her perspective:
1.) The harassment continued for four months in 2019. I'm guessing that's how long it took to apprehend the perp. Events could have played out differently in the interim.
2.) A MP no doubt has many more resources at their disposal to investigate this sort of offense. But just because a privileged few can be safeguarded doesn't mean that the problem should be ignored.
3.) The MP may have learned that the investigation was successful only because the perp was particularly dumb, and the perp might have gotten away with it if he had played his cards a little better.
4.) The problem is social media only in that it is a near monopoly on internet communication for people who want to be found. It is the new public space.
5.) We can agree that she shouldn't have put up with the abuse, but the problem is "What do you do about it?" if the other individual is unknown. During this time period, the only options that I can see are to play defense.
Koby, how the fuck is it "unconscionable" to say "you can post on our site as long as you obey our rules"?!?
Because saying that the corporation can make up whatever rules they want has never flown before. Dentists can't just say "you're not allowed to post a bad review" in their contract. Or "you are not allowed to modify the device that you bought and own". Claiming that you can make up any rule whatsoever is insufficient. States can say that service providers must give notice to customers prior to disconnection. States can say that service providers must enforce rules equally and not selectively. States have been overriding service contracts for years to protect consumers.
It doesn't matter. Courts have also upheld factors that are within a person's control, such as familial status and religion. Civil rights are not contingent upon choice, or the lack thereof. Lawmakers CAN require businesses to adhere to particular service standards, even if the business has a contract that claims they can do otherwise.
with the proviso that the use of the service is contingent on you following the rules.
On Techdirt here, we decry unconscionable contracts all the time. From businesses suing their own customers because they posted a negative review on a review site, to video games deleting a product that someone purchased, to telecommunication companies disallowing you to purchase your own equipment so that you can avoid bogus fees, just because a corporation writes a contract claiming that they can do anything that they want does not make it okay. States most certainly have the power to void unconscionable terms in a contract to protect consumers, employees, and service subscribers. Writing bogus and unequally enforced rules into a contract is something that states are empowered to modify.
It's not based on statute, it's based on contractual relationships. Fox News does not offer agreements with all members of the public to allow airtime.
Perhaps this take isn't accurate and the FBI takes a similar hands-off approach when keeping an eye on other potential threats involving less-white people.
Another possibility has nothing to do with race, and instead concerns public support. Imagine for a second if a local police department had a bunch of Democrats calling to defund the police, and then the police antagonized the local Republicans such that they agreed. Now picture the FBI on a national level, with both political parties calling for funding reductions.
by conspiring with the government HE LED AT THE TIME to deplatform him.
News flash: Trump never had omnipotent control of even the executive branch, despite the overactive imagination of some. It was well known that on several occasions, elements of the executive branch of government were working against Trump.
so it's not like there's any way for people or companies to reduce those claims.
Sure there is. Just apply the rules equally. In this case, for example, announce deplatforming for anyone videotaped participating in the 2020 looting-riots.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
Primarily it's Section 230, with judges dismissing prior to establishing whether the corporations have made bad faith moderation choices based upon politics and not their own rules. That's why many people are advocating for 230 reform.
If they allow all political speech, platforms ought not be able to go back and begin banning those with whom they disagree. Post the bias up front, or else let it slide. I view the selective enforcement, demonetization, and shadow banning practices of social media to be demonstrative of their unwritten bias.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
Commercial speech has been regulated, particularly on determining where commercial speech can occur, as well as compelling certain speech. Government has mandated nutrition labels. Government has also been able to control where tobacco advertisements can be shown. Clearly, the case that you have sited would permit a state to be able to restrict commercial spam by demonstrating a compelling state interest.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Glad To Help
I believe that something ubiquitous can become a public utility.
If it's not your speech, then you're not being compelled. And if you rely on 47 U.S. Code ยง 230 c(1) then it is NOT your speech.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
But they could. And some states have done so in certain areas, such as California with regards to employment.
That's fine. Just let the corporations issue an official reason for a ban, and then let there be a civil trial.
I've mentioned this before, that it would be ideal if social media companies would just be up-front. The billboard is about as up-front as could be, and everyone on the service would be subject to the same rules. In this case, that anyone not agreeing with that particular affiliation is banned. The trick with social media companies is that they decide their bias on the fly. During congressional hearings, they claim to be neutral, but then the SJWs act arbitrarily in practice. If a social media company were to be up-front about it and post something like "we hate Republicans, and we will ban them", I wouldn't have a problem with it.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
I look at techdirt as an opinion blog site with a forum section. It is the operator's choice whether they want to remove comments based on political preference instead of their own rules and assume publication liability.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Glad To Help
Most social media companies use section 230 to position speech that is posted by its users as not its own. The corporation then has a choice. 1.) accept it as its speech anyhow. This makes the company a publisher. They can fully control this type of speech, including censoring it, but they also become legally liable for it. Option 2.) maintain that the speech is not theirs, and they become a platform. You cannot claim that government is abridging your speech, if you are not the one engaged in the speech.
I personally believe that you ought to be allowed such a thing, as long as you post that rule up front, and you have equal enforcement. If there is unequal enforcement, however, that should be a cause for action.
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Glad To Help
The government has already passed civil rights laws stating that business cannot act with impunity regarding right of association, which is a good thing. While business can impose rules for EVERYONE to follow equally, businesses have been found guilty of civil rights violations when they treat others unequally. And many woke corporations fear the possibility of lawsuits based on demonstration of unequal treatment.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Glad To Help
Primarily, it's not about discussions. On social media, folks are able to create an account and post content, and others can choose whether to follow and receive that content. If anyone finds speech offensive, they are free to stop following that account. Meanwhile, the SJWs don't want to moderate discussion; rather, it is the original message that they want to delete, or perhaps they want to deplatform the entire account out of spite. The original message must be left alone. Let the users themselves decide if they want to continue receiving it.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Glad To Help
I'm unaware of any laws that specifically outlaw it. However, commercial speech is not subject to first amendment protections, and has been the subject of government regulation. Laws could be crafted to permit its removal by site operators.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Glad To Help
It means that if you don't claim someone else's speech as your own, then you similarly can't claim first amendment protection. Social media companies will need to choose between being a platform, or being a publisher. There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others. Moderation must be limited to removing things such as obscenity or commercial spam, and leave political speech alone.
On the post: Why Do We So Quickly Blame The Internet And Anonymity For Things That Are Not About Anonymous People Online?
Viewpoint
I'm not saying here that I agree that internet anonymity should end, but I can see a few things from her perspective:
1.) The harassment continued for four months in 2019. I'm guessing that's how long it took to apprehend the perp. Events could have played out differently in the interim.
2.) A MP no doubt has many more resources at their disposal to investigate this sort of offense. But just because a privileged few can be safeguarded doesn't mean that the problem should be ignored.
3.) The MP may have learned that the investigation was successful only because the perp was particularly dumb, and the perp might have gotten away with it if he had played his cards a little better.
4.) The problem is social media only in that it is a near monopoly on internet communication for people who want to be found. It is the new public space.
5.) We can agree that she shouldn't have put up with the abuse, but the problem is "What do you do about it?" if the other individual is unknown. During this time period, the only options that I can see are to play defense.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
Because saying that the corporation can make up whatever rules they want has never flown before. Dentists can't just say "you're not allowed to post a bad review" in their contract. Or "you are not allowed to modify the device that you bought and own". Claiming that you can make up any rule whatsoever is insufficient. States can say that service providers must give notice to customers prior to disconnection. States can say that service providers must enforce rules equally and not selectively. States have been overriding service contracts for years to protect consumers.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
It doesn't matter. Courts have also upheld factors that are within a person's control, such as familial status and religion. Civil rights are not contingent upon choice, or the lack thereof. Lawmakers CAN require businesses to adhere to particular service standards, even if the business has a contract that claims they can do otherwise.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
On Techdirt here, we decry unconscionable contracts all the time. From businesses suing their own customers because they posted a negative review on a review site, to video games deleting a product that someone purchased, to telecommunication companies disallowing you to purchase your own equipment so that you can avoid bogus fees, just because a corporation writes a contract claiming that they can do anything that they want does not make it okay. States most certainly have the power to void unconscionable terms in a contract to protect consumers, employees, and service subscribers. Writing bogus and unequally enforced rules into a contract is something that states are empowered to modify.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
It's not based on statute, it's based on contractual relationships. Fox News does not offer agreements with all members of the public to allow airtime.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
They have done that, rightfully so, with anti-discrimination laws. It has been upheld by courts.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Publisher vs Platforms
No. Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform. Only platforms can censor.
On the post: FBI Cites Guidelines That Don't Actually Forbid Social Media Monitoring As The Reason It Was Blindsided By The January 6 Attack
Another possibility has nothing to do with race, and instead concerns public support. Imagine for a second if a local police department had a bunch of Democrats calling to defund the police, and then the police antagonized the local Republicans such that they agreed. Now picture the FBI on a national level, with both political parties calling for funding reductions.
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
Imaginary Dictatorship
News flash: Trump never had omnipotent control of even the executive branch, despite the overactive imagination of some. It was well known that on several occasions, elements of the executive branch of government were working against Trump.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re: Re: Re:
Sure there is. Just apply the rules equally. In this case, for example, announce deplatforming for anyone videotaped participating in the 2020 looting-riots.
Next >>