You can't, because you're either a troll or an idiot as established by your long commenting history here.
Enforcing the First Amendment on totalitarian tech monopolies is actually spitting on the First Amendment?
That's not enforcing the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment limits what government can do regarding expression. It does not limit what a private company can do. Do you not believe in private property?
The only one you can "enforce" the 1st Amendment against is the government.
So, yes, passing a law that compels the hosting of speech is spitting on the 1st amendment.
The only clown here is you. But we knew that already from your long and bizarrely ignorant comment history. Go run off back to the idiot troll village.
Who decides what is "deadly misinformation" and what is free speech - or even life-saving information?
Everyone has to decide that on their own. I decide what I think is deadly misinformation, and so do you... and so does the administration and so does Facebook.
I am allowed to express my opinion on it, as are all the others.
The only times we run into trouble is when the government entity then tells a platform that they must remove that content, rather than pointing it out and saying "we believe this is disinformation."
So, yes, there is a fine line here, but it is not around who decides. It's around the line between the government informing Facebook and the government compelling Facebook.
I don't think the original comment is incorrect. It is true that there is a segment of the Democratic base that does want the gov't to play a more active role in pressuring websites to take down what they deem to be disinformation.
But I don't think that's the motivating factor in these comments. I do think they were just answering honestly about how they have highlighted certain content that they legitimately feel is putting lives at risk, and letting FB know about it.
jen psaki straight up said those banned from one site should be allowed to remain on other sites.
Yes, today she said that, and it was a dumb thing to say, but it was in response to the opposite happening. Basically she was asking why RFK Jr. was banned from Instagram but allowed to continue spreading disinfo on FB. It wasn't a demand. There was no threat associated with it.
It sounds like you heard the White House official press briefing yesterday.
At no point during the White House press briefing did they say they were ordering websites to ban speech.
The only ones reporting that are nonsense garbage websites, who took the comment out of context, lied about it, and distorted what was said. Coincidentally, those are the same garbage propaganda sites that always seem to have the same idiot talking points you spew here.
Considering that most big tech companies are now taking orders from the federal government on what speech to ban
Koby, no they're not.
You need to stop getting your news from garbage ignorant websites. The federal government pointing out "this is disinfo" into a process websites have set up to report disinfo is not "taking orders on what speech to ban."
I see the queue. And you're wrong. We have always let comments through, even those from ignorant fools and morons who disagree with us. The only reason YOUR comments don't get through is because you submit 100 of the exact same comment. So by the time we check the queue to see your ignorant foolish nonsense, you've already figured out some way to get your comment through anyway. And we don't want to have the entire comments flooded with 100 copies of you posting the same ignorant bullshit over and over again.
If you just had some modicum of self-control and patience, we'd let your stupid, ignorant, foolish, comments through. But you don't. So, you waste your time spamming, and we waste our time having to pick through a queue dominated by your nonsense.
Re: It's ironic that you respect "free speech for companies"
Companies shouldn't have constitutional protections.
Why not? That would be an absolute fucking disaster. Think of how often companies would be sued for absolutely garbage reasons.
That decision was almost as bad as citizen's united.
What decision? And what was "bad" about CU? What do you think CU was actually about?
People have rights, companies don't.
You may wish that to be true, but it is not. And if you took the time to understand why, you'd recognize that removing rights from corporations would be a total disaster of epic proportions. Say goodbye to any decent reporting, for example.
Most platforms claim that the speech posted by its users is not the speech of the platform in order to avoid liability. Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled.
Koby, this is wrong (again). This has been explained to you repeatedly. The 1st Amendment ALSO bars the government from interfering with the right of association. Forcing someone to host speech they disagree with is compelled violation of the 1st Amendment's right of free association.
There is no first amendment right to censor others.
You're so wrong it's laughable.
Why do you hate the 1st Amendment? Why do you support the government takeover of websites? Koby, you're so anti-American it hurts.
Since when did the first duty of government become something other than defending its citizens from private aggression?
Someone saying "I don't want you acting like an asshole in my house, you need to leave now," is not, and has never been "private aggression." The "private aggression" is the asshole demanding that he be allowed to stay and to annoy everyone else (hint: that's you. You. You're the asshole. Now go away).
Correction: House Republican's Entire Big Tech [No need to put the truth in quotes] Is 'We Must Force Big Tech to Honor The First Amendment'
They DO honor the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment forbids the gov't from passing laws restricting speech or association. That's why companies get to moderate how they see fit. What you want -- and what the GOP is pitching here -- is the exact opposite. It's a law regarding speech that would clearly violate the 1st Amendment.
Tell me, "restless" why do you hate the 1st Amendment?
Who judges what is a lie? Is it the Court of Public Opinion via Free Expression? Or is it some writer at Tech Dirt?
What does this have to do with anything?
I'll take Freedom of Expression & Speech over some prejudiced writer at Tech Dirt every single minute of every single day.
So... you don't support free speech at all. You support compelled speech, which is the exact opposite of free speech.
And so would, anyone who believes in the First Amendment as it applies throughout the entire American society. No more nitpicking.
No one's nitpicking. We're supporting the 1st Amendment, while you're setting it on fire because people don't support your ideas in the marketplace of ideas. Your ideas are toxic. And that's on you, you ignorant fool.
As long as there's competition, coffee at every other restaurant and grocery store and gas station, then we can rest easy. But if they were ever to become the dominant source of all coffee in the nation, then yes.
If you think Twitter is the dominant source of all conversation in the nation, you're so ignorant you should really reconsider your life choices. Twitter is tiny compared to many others. I mean, in terms of global stats it doesn't even show up on charts: https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/most-popular-social-media-platforms But if you're just talking about the US, it's dwarfed by Facebook and Instagram. Reddit, Pinterest & TikTok are all similarly sized.
Under no possible definition does Twitter control all speech.
I mean, Starbucks is FAR more dominant than Twitter.
More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.
Dude. Koby. Koby. Serioulsy. Dude. COMPELLED HOSTING OF SPEECH VIOLATES THE 1st AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION ON COMPELLED ASSOCIATION WITH SPEECH. How long until it gets through your thick head?
Koby, I'm confused. You keep insisting that social media shouldn't be allowed to take down anything every. Yet here you are insisting that they have to act to deal with harassment. You do realize that under your preferred solution that would not be allowed?
Re: 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.
Corporations can make up rules for participating within their property, so long as they don't contravene a few very limited restrictions. Saying "don't be an asshole, don't harass people" is not, in anyway, unconscionable. I mean, seriously, Koby.
Claiming that you can make up any rule whatsoever is insufficient
I see you moving the goalposts, Kobes, and I won't allow it. There's a world of difference between "this website says you need to not harass people or we'll kick you off" and "you're not allowed to post a bad review anywhere online." If you can't tell the difference, you're too stupid to be here. Go away and wallow in your own stupidity elsewhere.
In the late 90s the term platform started being used to describe these 'not publishers.'
Your timeline is off by... about 20 years. But okay.
So yes it is not a term created by an act of congress, it began as a commonly used vernacular.
Platform meant something very differently until recently. It used to mean something you could build apps on top of. Only recently (within the last 10 years or so) did it shift to mean a website for user generated content.
Now here is where you get too smart by half. The courts started using the word which makes it law genius. It was just recently used in Joe Biden Jr. v. Knight First Amendment Institute ~ April 2021
Justice Thomas used it in an unbriefed, random thought burp. Not as part of an actual ruling on a case he was briefed on. There is nothing in the law, which is the point that was made which you ignored.
On Techdirt here, we decry unconscionable contracts all the time
Koby, how the fuck is it "unconscionable" to say "you can post on our site as long as you obey our rules"?!?
Are you really that clueless?
Writing bogus and unequally enforced rules into a contract is something that states are empowered to modify.
What is bogus? And what is unequally enforced? (Hint: just because you surround yourself with idiots, assholes and trolls, and don't realize that people outside of your idiot brigade also get banned, does not mean that rules are enforced unequally).
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Help Me
So let me see if I can get this straight:
You can't, because you're either a troll or an idiot as established by your long commenting history here.
Enforcing the First Amendment on totalitarian tech monopolies is actually spitting on the First Amendment?
That's not enforcing the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment limits what government can do regarding expression. It does not limit what a private company can do. Do you not believe in private property?
The only one you can "enforce" the 1st Amendment against is the government.
So, yes, passing a law that compels the hosting of speech is spitting on the 1st amendment.
The only clown here is you. But we knew that already from your long and bizarrely ignorant comment history. Go run off back to the idiot troll village.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
Re:
Who decides what is "deadly misinformation" and what is free speech - or even life-saving information?
Everyone has to decide that on their own. I decide what I think is deadly misinformation, and so do you... and so does the administration and so does Facebook.
I am allowed to express my opinion on it, as are all the others.
The only times we run into trouble is when the government entity then tells a platform that they must remove that content, rather than pointing it out and saying "we believe this is disinformation."
So, yes, there is a fine line here, but it is not around who decides. It's around the line between the government informing Facebook and the government compelling Facebook.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
Re: Re: Not a mistake
I don't think the original comment is incorrect. It is true that there is a segment of the Democratic base that does want the gov't to play a more active role in pressuring websites to take down what they deem to be disinformation.
But I don't think that's the motivating factor in these comments. I do think they were just answering honestly about how they have highlighted certain content that they legitimately feel is putting lives at risk, and letting FB know about it.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
Re:
jen psaki straight up said those banned from one site should be allowed to remain on other sites.
Yes, today she said that, and it was a dumb thing to say, but it was in response to the opposite happening. Basically she was asking why RFK Jr. was banned from Instagram but allowed to continue spreading disinfo on FB. It wasn't a demand. There was no threat associated with it.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re: Fucking what?
Well, not quite. That part of the law wasn't thrown out but it wasn't reviewed...
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It sounds like you heard the White House official press briefing yesterday.
At no point during the White House press briefing did they say they were ordering websites to ban speech.
The only ones reporting that are nonsense garbage websites, who took the comment out of context, lied about it, and distorted what was said. Coincidentally, those are the same garbage propaganda sites that always seem to have the same idiot talking points you spew here.
Koby: let's be frank, you're a duped fool.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re: Re:
Considering that most big tech companies are now taking orders from the federal government on what speech to ban
Koby, no they're not.
You need to stop getting your news from garbage ignorant websites. The federal government pointing out "this is disinfo" into a process websites have set up to report disinfo is not "taking orders on what speech to ban."
Don't be an idiot.
On the post: Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED
I see the queue. And you're wrong. We have always let comments through, even those from ignorant fools and morons who disagree with us. The only reason YOUR comments don't get through is because you submit 100 of the exact same comment. So by the time we check the queue to see your ignorant foolish nonsense, you've already figured out some way to get your comment through anyway. And we don't want to have the entire comments flooded with 100 copies of you posting the same ignorant bullshit over and over again.
If you just had some modicum of self-control and patience, we'd let your stupid, ignorant, foolish, comments through. But you don't. So, you waste your time spamming, and we waste our time having to pick through a queue dominated by your nonsense.
Knock if off.
On the post: Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment
Re: It's ironic that you respect "free speech for companies"
Companies shouldn't have constitutional protections.
Why not? That would be an absolute fucking disaster. Think of how often companies would be sued for absolutely garbage reasons.
That decision was almost as bad as citizen's united.
What decision? And what was "bad" about CU? What do you think CU was actually about?
People have rights, companies don't.
You may wish that to be true, but it is not. And if you took the time to understand why, you'd recognize that removing rights from corporations would be a total disaster of epic proportions. Say goodbye to any decent reporting, for example.
On the post: Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment
Re: Not Compelled
Most platforms claim that the speech posted by its users is not the speech of the platform in order to avoid liability. Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled.
Koby, this is wrong (again). This has been explained to you repeatedly. The 1st Amendment ALSO bars the government from interfering with the right of association. Forcing someone to host speech they disagree with is compelled violation of the 1st Amendment's right of free association.
There is no first amendment right to censor others.
You're so wrong it's laughable.
Why do you hate the 1st Amendment? Why do you support the government takeover of websites? Koby, you're so anti-American it hurts.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re:
Since when did the first duty of government become something other than defending its citizens from private aggression?
Someone saying "I don't want you acting like an asshole in my house, you need to leave now," is not, and has never been "private aggression." The "private aggression" is the asshole demanding that he be allowed to stay and to annoy everyone else (hint: that's you. You. You're the asshole. Now go away).
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Correction
Correction: House Republican's Entire Big Tech [No need to put the truth in quotes] Is 'We Must Force Big Tech to Honor The First Amendment'
They DO honor the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment forbids the gov't from passing laws restricting speech or association. That's why companies get to moderate how they see fit. What you want -- and what the GOP is pitching here -- is the exact opposite. It's a law regarding speech that would clearly violate the 1st Amendment.
Tell me, "restless" why do you hate the 1st Amendment?
Who judges what is a lie? Is it the Court of Public Opinion via Free Expression? Or is it some writer at Tech Dirt?
What does this have to do with anything?
I'll take Freedom of Expression & Speech over some prejudiced writer at Tech Dirt every single minute of every single day.
So... you don't support free speech at all. You support compelled speech, which is the exact opposite of free speech.
And so would, anyone who believes in the First Amendment as it applies throughout the entire American society. No more nitpicking.
No one's nitpicking. We're supporting the 1st Amendment, while you're setting it on fire because people don't support your ideas in the marketplace of ideas. Your ideas are toxic. And that's on you, you ignorant fool.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: We need GOP 230
Wut? I've read this comment 3 times and I cannot parse any single sentence in a way that makes sense. What do you disagree with exactly?
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: Glad To Help
As long as there's competition, coffee at every other restaurant and grocery store and gas station, then we can rest easy. But if they were ever to become the dominant source of all coffee in the nation, then yes.
If you think Twitter is the dominant source of all conversation in the nation, you're so ignorant you should really reconsider your life choices. Twitter is tiny compared to many others. I mean, in terms of global stats it doesn't even show up on charts: https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/most-popular-social-media-platforms But if you're just talking about the US, it's dwarfed by Facebook and Instagram. Reddit, Pinterest & TikTok are all similarly sized.
Under no possible definition does Twitter control all speech.
I mean, Starbucks is FAR more dominant than Twitter.
More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.
Dude. Koby. Koby. Serioulsy. Dude. COMPELLED HOSTING OF SPEECH VIOLATES THE 1st AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION ON COMPELLED ASSOCIATION WITH SPEECH. How long until it gets through your thick head?
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: Glad To Help
I believe that something ubiquitous can become a public utility.
Public utility does not mean ubiquitous. Starbucks is ubiquitous. Should the gov't seize Starbucks? I never took you for a communist, Koby.
If it's not your speech, then you're not being compelled.
What? The issue is compelled association, Kobes. Forcing me to HOST your nonsense speech violates the 1st Amendment.
And if you rely on 47 U.S. Code ยง 230 c(1) then it is NOT your speech.
Yes, but forcing me to HOST your speech is absolutely a violation of the 1st Amendment.
So, to sum up, you're a communist who is against the 1st Amendment. Fascinating.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: 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.
This makes no sense Koby.
Social media companies will need to choose between being a platform, or being a publisher.
That makes no sense Koby.
There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others.
So you don't believe in private property?
Moderation must be limited to removing things such as obscenity or commercial spam, and leave political speech alone.
So you don't believe in the 1st Amendment's prohibition on compelled speech?
On the post: Why Do We So Quickly Blame The Internet And Anonymity For Things That Are Not About Anonymous People Online?
Re: Viewpoint
Koby, I'm confused. You keep insisting that social media shouldn't be allowed to take down anything every. Yet here you are insisting that they have to act to deal with harassment. You do realize that under your preferred solution that would not be allowed?
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: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
Because saying that the corporation can make up whatever rules they want has never flown before.
Corporations can make up rules for participating within their property, so long as they don't contravene a few very limited restrictions. Saying "don't be an asshole, don't harass people" is not, in anyway, unconscionable. I mean, seriously, Koby.
Claiming that you can make up any rule whatsoever is insufficient
I see you moving the goalposts, Kobes, and I won't allow it. There's a world of difference between "this website says you need to not harass people or we'll kick you off" and "you're not allowed to post a bad review anywhere online." If you can't tell the difference, you're too stupid to be here. Go away and wallow in your own stupidity elsewhere.
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: Publisher vs Platforms
In the late 90s the term platform started being used to describe these 'not publishers.'
Your timeline is off by... about 20 years. But okay.
So yes it is not a term created by an act of congress, it began as a commonly used vernacular.
Platform meant something very differently until recently. It used to mean something you could build apps on top of. Only recently (within the last 10 years or so) did it shift to mean a website for user generated content.
Now here is where you get too smart by half. The courts started using the word which makes it law genius. It was just recently used in Joe Biden Jr. v. Knight First Amendment Institute ~ April 2021
Justice Thomas used it in an unbriefed, random thought burp. Not as part of an actual ruling on a case he was briefed on. There is nothing in the law, which is the point that was made which you ignored.
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: Publisher vs Platforms
On Techdirt here, we decry unconscionable contracts all the time
Koby, how the fuck is it "unconscionable" to say "you can post on our site as long as you obey our rules"?!?
Are you really that clueless?
Writing bogus and unequally enforced rules into a contract is something that states are empowered to modify.
What is bogus? And what is unequally enforced? (Hint: just because you surround yourself with idiots, assholes and trolls, and don't realize that people outside of your idiot brigade also get banned, does not mean that rules are enforced unequally).
Next >>