Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a much deeper issue than people most realize. It's not really about a private company controlling their platform or any of that. It's about whether or not the political discourse in this country is going to be allowed to be steered by private corporations who we already know have close connections to the some of the most disreputable agencies in the government.
The political conversation happens online. It's not at bars and town halls anymore. It's on Facebook. It's on Twitter. It's on City-Data. Regardless of which site people use, the vast majority of political discussion is happening on the internet.
EVERY site is a private site. There's no public "town square" online. There's no place that people have discussions which isn't owned by someone. That creates a pretty serious issue with regard to just how much control over discussion these companies currently have, doesn't it?
I don't recall the name of the case, but there was a landmark SCOTUS case a while back in a company town where someone wanted to hand out religious leaflets or some such thing, and the company which owned the literal town square told him he couldn't. The case went all the way and the company lost.
Fundamentally, I see this as the same situation. There's no place where we can hold a discussion which is common property. It's all owned by a private entity of some sort. If we're prevented from airing our political grievances and debating with our opponents online, we've been effectively silenced, haven't we? If that's legal under current law, the law needs to be changed.
Plenty of fake citizens on Facebook placed there by Russian companies to influence and it worked. It's also not a question of protection, it's allowing disinformation to propagate and being misunderstood as fact.
Like I said they have been criticized by congress for not doing enough and also restricting too much. Deciding where to draw the line is complicated and should be left in their hands.
And multitudes more were US citizens expressing their views on matters. Russians interference didn't produce a discourse that wasn't/wouldn't be there organically. The discourse was there at the political level at a high point, and via purely sourced US media companies (on the left and the right), and among the populace at the lowest level.
Still, to your point, Congress can dictate some things, sure. But Congress has limited powers and those powers not reserved to it are left to the states and the people. That said, this certainly would be an issue where Congress could legislature as it is undeniably implicates interstate commerce. That said, as I've alluded to, why should these social media companies get special treatment? Generally speaking, telecommunications companies cannot cancel your accounts based on your speech or political leanings as they are heavily regulated by law as "common carriers." Social media operates almost in a much more meaningful manner than traditional common carriers do when it comes to public discourse. If anything, it should be a given that the same rules apply to them, IMO.
it's just another issue to be taken up by Congress, and surely won't so long as Dems are in charge and the (social) media outlets veer left.
Seriously? Look at the place man…. a bunch of right-wing extremist anti-vaxer, xenophobic, election deniers are here each and every day spewing lie after lie. This place is a playground for the MAGA Republicans. Veering left my ass.
And multitudes more were US citizens expressing their views on matters. Russians interference didn't produce a discourse that wasn't/wouldn't be there organically. The discourse was there at the political level at a high point, and via purely sourced US media companies (on the left and the right), and among the populace at the lowest level.
Still, to your point, Congress can dictate some things, sure. But Congress has limited powers and those powers not reserved to it are left to the states and the people. That said, this certainly would be an issue where Congress could legislature as it is undeniably implicates interstate commerce. That said, as I've alluded to, why should these social media companies get special treatment? Generally speaking, telecommunications companies cannot cancel your accounts based on your speech or political leanings as they are heavily regulated by law as "common carriers." Social media operates almost in a much more meaningful manner than traditional common carriers do when it comes to public discourse. If anything, it should be a given that the same rules apply to them, IMO.
Russians most certainly created fake profiles that could have been eliminated, they were not US citizens. Using your phone is quite different than using social media. People agree to the terms of agreement on these sites, if they don’t like them then go to elsewhere.
So how does the government regulate their perception of viewpoints, what’s the threshold.
Russians most certainly created fake profiles that could have been eliminated, they were not US citizens.
Sure, they did, which I readily admitted. But they were a small amount comparatively speaking; it was miniscule compared to the total US citizen social media presence from both sides during the election season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Using your phone is quite different than using social media. People agree to the terms of agreement on these sites, if they don’t like them then go to elsewhere. People agree to the terms of agreement on these sites, if they don’t like them then go to elsewhere.
As they do when they sign up for phone service. The terms may be somewhat different, but that's entirely my point. That the law as it exists today requires that the terms be different as the telecommunications companies are common carriers, so the law already prohibits exactly what they can and can't do.
And, as I noted, Congress has already established that platforms aren't "speaking" when they host others on their platforms:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Fundamentally, people can agree to whatever they want. That doesn't mean that government cannot separately regulate and create causes of action between private parties, which Texas has chosen to do here with the social media law. So long as a law in question doesn't violate the Constitution (which it doesn't here as the law regulates the social media companies' conduct vice speech), then the law will generally be allowed to stand.
As to the differences between telecommunications and social media, yes they are there. But, as I mentioned before, in today's world social media has taken on an even more important role in communications (depending on the society/country/etc.) than traditional communications mediums, which means that these principles should apply even more to social media companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
So how does the government regulate their perception of viewpoints, what’s the threshold.
The Texas law does a pretty good job on this point. It prohibits viewpoint discrimination by platforms on account of:
Quote:
(1) the viewpoint of the user or another person;
(2) the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression or another person’s expression; or
(3) a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state.
Quote:
“Censor” means “to block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal
access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression.” Id. § 143A.001(1). For Section 7 to apply, a censored user must reside in Texas, do business in Texas, or share or receive expression in Texas. Id. § 143A.004(a)–(b).
This prohibition on viewpoint-based censorship contains several qualifications. Section 7 does not limit censorship of expression that a Platform “is specifically authorized to censor by federal law”; expression
that “is the subject of a referral or request from an organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse from ongoing harassment”; expression that “directly incites criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge”; or “unlawful expression.” Id. § 143A.006.
Finally, Section 7 provides a narrow remedial scheme. If a Platform violates Section 7 with respect to a user, that user may sue for declaratory and injunctive relief and may recover costs and attorney’s fees if successful. Id. § 143A.007. The Attorney General of Texas may also sue to enforce Section 7 and may recover attorney’s fees and reasonable investigative costs if successful. Id. § 143A.008. Damages are not available.
I have nothing against private big tech social media companies to censor content Their right to do so has led to a bunch of new social media platforms that don't censor what people want to say. Therefore, somebody on bitchute is not denied the right to say in a video that the Holocaust was a hoax. And I don't have to agree with it.
If you want social media companies not allowed to censor anybody, then you might as well agree to political candidates, who you hate or disagree with being allowed to post their yard signs in your front yard as they will likely want to do if you live on a busy street corner.
It’s sad that big tech wants to censor everyone who doesn’t want to be “woke.” Thank goodness we still have adults in the room to prevent it.
Oh, to be fair about it, you wouldn't mind if a far leftist posted his political agenda on a big sign posted in your front yard. As for me, I'd guarantee you right and left that I would sure as hell mind.
I have nothing against private big tech social media companies to censor content Their right to do so has led to a bunch of new social media platforms that don't censor what people want to say. Therefore, somebody on bitchute is not denied the right to say in a video that the Holocaust was a hoax. And I don't have to agree with it.
If you want social media companies not allowed to censor anybody, then you might as well agree to political candidates, who you hate or disagree with being allowed to post their yard signs in your front yard as they will likely want to do if you live on a busy street corner.
I think the Texas law tried to draw a line between things by applying the regulations to platforms having a certain large number of users that are particularly influential; and that disproportionately seem to be censoring users on one side of the political aisle.
Still, I'd see things your way more so if these platforms weren't protected from being sued for defamation on account of their users. If some are going to try to make this into a free speech issue, then what would mean that user posts (and the platforms ability to censor them) are, in fact, speaking as the platform; otherwise, the First Amendment argument doesn't work. Yet, the law protects platforms from such a burden and is clear that users don't speak for a platform by their nature of posting within a platform.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Generally speaking, telecommunications companies cannot cancel your accounts based on your speech or political leanings as they are heavily regulated by law as "common carriers." Social media operates almost in a much more meaningful manner than traditional common carriers do when it comes to public discourse. If anything, it should be a given that the same rules apply to them, IMO.
