No, they don’t want anyone who can access a keyboard to have a voice that can be easily heard. Twitter and Facebook allow for that thanks to sharing protocols (e.g., retweets). You can still run a blog, but unless you’re well-connected on social media, nobody will really notice it.
This is yet another garbage bill from someone who appears to have no knowledge or experience how any of this works in practice, but is quite sure that if everyone just did things the way she wanted, magically good stuff would happen.
Damn, I used a perfectly good joke last week that would’ve fit in right here. Curse my impulse to take cheap potshots at the troll brigade!
…but seriously, this bill is shit and no one with any in-practice knowledge of moderation should defend it.
While local Fox affiliates may run Fox News segments and whatnot, they are not Fox News affiliates per se. They’re local news outlets like any ABC, CBS, or NBC affiliate. To that end, they’re not generally able to claim the same precedent set by Tucker Carlson.
And I know which six: The Room, Birdemic, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, and Home Alone 2 (but just the five or so seconds where he appears).
Whether I agree with the ruling based on the facts of the case is irrelevant. (And I don’t know enough about said facts to say whether I agree.) Alls I know is a conservative-leaning Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States said “[a] private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor”. If that doesn’t make Brainy shut up about corporate-owned speech platforms on the Internet, nothing will.
Except it is. You seem to forget that the First Amendment protects the freedom of association — which is the very thing you’re trying to destroy when you say you want the government to force platforms into hosting speech they otherwise wouldn’t host.
the speech of the users is not the speech of the platform
That sentence is the exact idea that 230 protects. And yet, you seek to undo that.
there is no free market when the corporations decide against tens of millions of their own users
Those “tens of millions of … users” can go somewhere else if they don’t like the rules. They’re not entitled to spots on, or attention from people on, those platforms. I mean, haven’t you heard of Gab and Parler?
corporations running a public utility should be forced to play by the same rules
And if social media were a public utility, I would agree with you. But it’s not, so I don’t. (And saying “it’s a public utility” or “it’s a public forum” doesn’t make one out of Twitter or Facebook.)
Twitter is a privately owned service, much like Masterpiece Cakeshop. And much like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Twitter has the right to decide which persons and what speech will be allowed to associate with Twitter. And just as I wouldn’t ever ask the government to force Masterpiece Cakeshop into decorating a basic-ass wedding cake for a gay couple, I wouldn’t ask the government to force Twitter into hosting anti-vaxx bullshit and propaganda for racist assholes.
If I can grasp that concept, why in the blue devil fuck can’t you?
Just as companies can be bound by mandates over who receives service, and who can be disconnected, the government can do the same for the network service.
You’re mistaking Internet access for access to Twitter. (But yes, Network Neutrality should be a thing again.)
Oh, good. I finally get to destroy this notion in a direct reply to you.
ahem
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh(!) wrote the majority opinion:
Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.
The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity.
…
When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]
By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
…
A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.
I have a follow-up question for you, Brainy. Yes or no: If you believe the government should have the right to force speech upon privately owned open-to-the-public property, do you believe the government should have the right to force an anti-gay baker into decorating a wedding cake for a gay couple?
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?
Why do you insist you should be allowed to use any platform you choose for political speech?
Koby believes he is entitled to a spot on Twitter, Facebook, etc. because they’re “public fora” or some shit, and any moderation of people who both identify as conservative and violate the TOS of a given service is somehow unconstitutional socialist bullshit.
He’s 100% wrong about all of that — and about Section 230, natch — but he’s free to believe his inane bullshit all he wants. Free country and all that.
indicative of someone who was not honestly looking into the subject and reading other opinions on it but who had already decided their conclusion and was looking for strawmen to throw up and tear down in order to 'bolster' their point
Kinda reminds me of someone around here. Oh, I wish I could think of their name. But damn it all, I can’t come up with that name right now. You got any ideas?
230 doesn’t allow corporations to “dictate free speech”. It allows corporations to moderate third-party speech on platforms they own without the worry of having to fight off tons of frivolous lawsuits.
The First Amendment doesn’t allow corporations to “dictate free speech”. It allows corporations to moderate third-party speech on platforms they own under the principle of the freedom of association.
Your “solution” to the 230 “problem” is the “short circuit” to the First Amendment: Without the ability to legally moderate, no one who owns/operates an interactive web service could exercise their right of association. Stormfront would be as legally bound to carry Black Lives Matter propaganda as a BLM-focused Mastodon instance would be to carry white supremacist propaganda. You would have the government dictate what legally protected speech a privately owned service such as Twitter or SoundCloud or Parler can and cannot, will and will not, must and must not host.
You care so much about “corporate ‘censorship’ ” that your “solution” to a problem-that-isn’t is for the government to control speech on all platforms. What the actual fuck, Koby.
And before you go bitching about public forums and shit: I’ve got the Kavanaugh copypasta stored as a PhraseExpress macro. Don’t make me post it again.
On the post: Bad Section 230 Bills Come From Both Sides Of The Aisle: Schakowsky/Castor Bill Would Be A Disaster For The Open Internet
No, they don’t want anyone who can access a keyboard to have a voice that can be easily heard. Twitter and Facebook allow for that thanks to sharing protocols (e.g., retweets). You can still run a blog, but unless you’re well-connected on social media, nobody will really notice it.
On the post: Bad Section 230 Bills Come From Both Sides Of The Aisle: Schakowsky/Castor Bill Would Be A Disaster For The Open Internet
Damn, I used a perfectly good joke last week that would’ve fit in right here. Curse my impulse to take cheap potshots at the troll brigade!
…but seriously, this bill is shit and no one with any in-practice knowledge of moderation should defend it.
On the post: Twitch Takes Steps To Make It Even Easier To Issue DMCA Strikes Against Streamers
Nah, it’ll go all Resident Evil Village and calcify before breaking apart.
(And that’s probably the most merciful death in the game. 👀)
On the post: Trump DOJ Investigated Internal Leaks By Obtaining Journalists' Phone Records
So…Mitch McConnell?
On the post: Trump DOJ Investigated Internal Leaks By Obtaining Journalists' Phone Records
Oh, trust me, I chose the other five for quality reasons…but I also chose them for reasons at least semi-related to his time in office:
On the post: Baltimore Prosecutor Asks FCC To Go After Local News Broadcasters She Doesn't Like
Fox News ≠ local Fox affiliates
While local Fox affiliates may run Fox News segments and whatnot, they are not Fox News affiliates per se. They’re local news outlets like any ABC, CBS, or NBC affiliate. To that end, they’re not generally able to claim the same precedent set by Tucker Carlson.
On the post: Baltimore Prosecutor Asks FCC To Go After Local News Broadcasters She Doesn't Like
The criticism Mosby was receiving will look even tamer compared to criticisms such as “fascist censor” and “attacker of free speech”.
On the post: Minister Behind Canada's Social Media Bill Now Says It Will Regulate User Generated Content
That notion could apply to every opponent of Section 230 here in the States, too.
On the post: Trump DOJ Investigated Internal Leaks By Obtaining Journalists' Phone Records
And I know which six: The Room, Birdemic, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, and Home Alone 2 (but just the five or so seconds where he appears).
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Whether I agree with the ruling based on the facts of the case is irrelevant. (And I don’t know enough about said facts to say whether I agree.) Alls I know is a conservative-leaning Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States said “[a] private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor”. If that doesn’t make Brainy shut up about corporate-owned speech platforms on the Internet, nothing will.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Ask them what specific values they’re talking about, then. Evasion and deflection only work if you let them.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Hey now, let’s be fair. Those people can compete.
That they lose practically every time isn’t anyone’s fault but their own, though.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Except it is. You seem to forget that the First Amendment protects the freedom of association — which is the very thing you’re trying to destroy when you say you want the government to force platforms into hosting speech they otherwise wouldn’t host.
That sentence is the exact idea that 230 protects. And yet, you seek to undo that.
Those “tens of millions of … users” can go somewhere else if they don’t like the rules. They’re not entitled to spots on, or attention from people on, those platforms. I mean, haven’t you heard of Gab and Parler?
And if social media were a public utility, I would agree with you. But it’s not, so I don’t. (And saying “it’s a public utility” or “it’s a public forum” doesn’t make one out of Twitter or Facebook.)
Twitter is a privately owned service, much like Masterpiece Cakeshop. And much like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Twitter has the right to decide which persons and what speech will be allowed to associate with Twitter. And just as I wouldn’t ever ask the government to force Masterpiece Cakeshop into decorating a basic-ass wedding cake for a gay couple, I wouldn’t ask the government to force Twitter into hosting anti-vaxx bullshit and propaganda for racist assholes.
If I can grasp that concept, why in the blue devil fuck can’t you?
You’re mistaking Internet access for access to Twitter. (But yes, Network Neutrality should be a thing again.)
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Shut up, Meg.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Oh, good. I finally get to destroy this notion in a direct reply to you.
ahem
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh(!) wrote the majority opinion:
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
I have a follow-up question for you, Brainy. Yes or no: If you believe the government should have the right to force speech upon privately owned open-to-the-public property, do you believe the government should have the right to force an anti-gay baker into decorating a wedding cake for a gay couple?
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
I have One Simple Question for you.
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?
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Koby believes he is entitled to a spot on Twitter, Facebook, etc. because they’re “public fora” or some shit, and any moderation of people who both identify as conservative and violate the TOS of a given service is somehow unconstitutional socialist bullshit.
He’s 100% wrong about all of that — and about Section 230, natch — but he’s free to believe his inane bullshit all he wants. Free country and all that.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Kinda reminds me of someone around here. Oh, I wish I could think of their name. But damn it all, I can’t come up with that name right now. You got any ideas?
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Try arguing in facts instead of feelings, Koby.
230 doesn’t allow corporations to “dictate free speech”. It allows corporations to moderate third-party speech on platforms they own without the worry of having to fight off tons of frivolous lawsuits.
The First Amendment doesn’t allow corporations to “dictate free speech”. It allows corporations to moderate third-party speech on platforms they own under the principle of the freedom of association.
Your “solution” to the 230 “problem” is the “short circuit” to the First Amendment: Without the ability to legally moderate, no one who owns/operates an interactive web service could exercise their right of association. Stormfront would be as legally bound to carry Black Lives Matter propaganda as a BLM-focused Mastodon instance would be to carry white supremacist propaganda. You would have the government dictate what legally protected speech a privately owned service such as Twitter or SoundCloud or Parler can and cannot, will and will not, must and must not host.
You care so much about “corporate ‘censorship’ ” that your “solution” to a problem-that-isn’t is for the government to control speech on all platforms. What the actual fuck, Koby.
And before you go bitching about public forums and shit: I’ve got the Kavanaugh copypasta stored as a PhraseExpress macro. Don’t make me post it again.
Next >>