Georgia Senate Passes Bill Seeking To Regulate Social Media (apnews.com) 389
The Georgia state Senate voted 33-21 on Tuesday to pass a bill that seeks to prohibit social media platforms from removing or censoring content amid an outcry from conservatives that their political views are being discriminated against, even though a similar Texas law has been put on hold by a federal court. The Associated Press reports: Senate Bill 393 moves to the House for more debate. It declares that social media companies that have more than 20 million users in the United States are common carriers and that they can't block people from receiving certain messages based on viewpoints, location, race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, gender, sexual orientation or disability. "What we are stating here is you cannot be discriminated against for your viewpoint, your gender, your age or other things in this 21st century public square," said Sen. Greg Dolezal, a Cumming Republican who is sponsoring the bill. Dolezal said companies could still pull down lewd, obscene or offensive materials.
But the technology industry says the measure is illegal, in part because it would unconstitutionally make private companies host speech they don't agree with. They also argue that private owners should be able to do as they please with their own property. Dolezal has acknowledged that the state would be sued if it passed the law, but argues that a challenge could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, breaking new and desirable ground. Researchers have not found widespread evidence that social media companies are biased against conservative news, posts or materials.
The bill says social media companies must publish how it moderates content, targets content to specific users, and how it boosts the reach or hides specific content. It also says social media companies have to publish a report every six months on how often they were alerted to potentially illegal content and how many times they removed or downplayed content and suspended or removed users. Anyone who doesn't think a company is following the law could file a civil lawsuit, including a class action, in Georgia courts.
But the technology industry says the measure is illegal, in part because it would unconstitutionally make private companies host speech they don't agree with. They also argue that private owners should be able to do as they please with their own property. Dolezal has acknowledged that the state would be sued if it passed the law, but argues that a challenge could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, breaking new and desirable ground. Researchers have not found widespread evidence that social media companies are biased against conservative news, posts or materials.
The bill says social media companies must publish how it moderates content, targets content to specific users, and how it boosts the reach or hides specific content. It also says social media companies have to publish a report every six months on how often they were alerted to potentially illegal content and how many times they removed or downplayed content and suspended or removed users. Anyone who doesn't think a company is following the law could file a civil lawsuit, including a class action, in Georgia courts.
The Constitution (Score:2)
Isn't the First Amendment there to PREVENT the Government from doing this nonsense?
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
This the true face of conservatives: heavy handed, unconstitutional, willing to use the power of the government to force business to carry their rancid threats, racism, and propaganda. Nobody was ever shut down for advocating low taxes and limited regulation, but that's not who were dealing with here.
Nothing says "limited government regulation" like forcing you to turn your business into another one of their misogynistic sewers.
Re: (Score:2)
What about my freedoms?
school institutes mask policy
Oh no you can't do that. Let me pass a law so your funding is withheld.
Freedom indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah conservatives always insisting people have a right to speak and be heard in the public space. What garbage. I mean the next thing you know they might come up with the idea that it's wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of race creed or color. Or even something more ridiculous like it's the content of your character rather than the color of your skin.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a public space?
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a public space?
It isn't and yet it is, sorta. Just like malls are private places but are treated like public ones in many ways for the benefit of society (like they can't tell you that you can't take a photo in the mall, because there is substantial public interest in those photos, though they can kick you out for antisocial behavior) there is an argument to be made that Twitter (etc.) can be regulated on the same basis because it's where the public is.
And in fact web sites are regulated, the right wingers simply perceive
Re: The Constitution (Score:2)
Re: The Constitution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Malls aren't responsible for what patrons say in malls, either. Their speech is their responsibility. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove here, but you didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a public space?
It is a space (too much of) the public (sadly) exists in. When any business opens their doors to members of the public they necessarily lose some rights to do as they please. This is because the rights and interests of the individuals have to be weighed against the interests of the business owner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter is a public space?
According to the CEO they are.
https://www.usnews.com/news/ar... [usnews.com]
If Twitter is going to call themselves a "global town square" then they need to be treated like a "global town square."
Re:The Constitution (Score:4)
Doesn't make it true but that statement shows what they intent and how they might think of themselves. These statements might come back to bite them. At some point the government might just say you want to be a town square, so here you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter, Facebook, et al. are NOT public spaces. They are private companies. Social media is not a right, neither enumerated nor implied.
Nobody is stopping "conservatives" (and I'm using that in the loosest possible sense, since the people demanding this stuff tend to come from the crazy far right) from spinning up their own social media platforms wherein they are free to post whatever misinformed drivel they want. They have tried, of course, but since these platforms only attract people with the same views
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter, Facebook, et al. are NOT public spaces.
Yes, they are. Twitter, at least, has refereed to itself as "global town square" more than once.
https://www.usnews.com/news/ar... [usnews.com]
If they want to call themselves that then they need to be treated like that.
Re: (Score:3)
They can call themselves Queens Of England, that still doesn't make it so. Law is law, and that law says they are not a public space. Period. Don't like it? Talk to your congresscritter. Democracy 101.
An that seems to be exactly what is happening. They called themselves a town square and the people have agreed to that. Now the laws are being changed to reflect that.
It's only a matter of time before they find themselves regulated.
Re: (Score:3)
Reading comprehension again is your friend.
Come on, you are not that dumb. Let me try to explain the difference to you.
You are not the Queen of England if you call yourself that. You want to know why? Because nobody else will recognize you as the Queen of England. But on the other hand if you call yourself the Queen of England, and the people of England agree that you are Queen, then the government says you are the Queen of England. Guess, what Your Magisty.
Now then, here is what is happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Second hint: The answer is 'no.'
You misspelled 'yes' there. There are many ways this can happen. The obvious is just to pass a law regulating making the "public square" companies liable for what they edit, change, or take down. Which is how it should be anyway.
The companies could be declared a public utility thus making them available for regulation.
Then there is always the nuclear option. A Constitutional amendment giving Congress the ability to regulate online content. Don't tell me it can't happen. This country once passed a
Re: (Score:3)
What is it with you people and not admitting you are wrong? You said "no, it can't be." I corrected you an showed you how it could be done. Let me help you with your answer.
You say, "why yes. I see how it could be done. Thank you for helping with my ignorance. " That last part is not really needed. It's just there for my ego.
See? Simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Bless your little heart. Reality that bad for you?
Moving on.
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah conservatives always insisting people have a right to speak and be heard in the public space.
Unless you say something they don't like.
Or something that goes against their "Christian" morals.
Or anything that suggests that their ancestors were anything but heroes and paragons of virtue.
Or if you insinuate that the "Dear Leaders" are anything other than the most exemplary and benevolent rulers ever.
And Heaven forbid that anyone suggests that the United States of America is not the greatest nation in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
I usually don't reply to sh*t like this, I just assume your trolling. But in this case I'm not certain that you are trolling.
I'm conservative, and I believe in free speech just like everyone else. I think what you said is complete BS and easily refuted. But I also don't mind that you said ii, as obviously you've come to this conclusion for some specific reason. I am curious as to what that reason is. If that reason is something you say on reddit/tiktok/twitter than I strongly suggest you get out and talk to
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah conservatives always insisting people have a right to speak and be heard in the public space. What garbage. I mean the next thing you know they might come up with the idea that it's wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of race creed or color. Or even something more ridiculous like it's the content of your character rather than the color of your skin.
Except that's a red herring. Freedom of speech isn't absolute, never was. The first amendment is this and nothing else:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It means that congress - which is the government - is not able to create laws establishing an official religion or
Re: (Score:2)
It can't prevent anyone from doing anything. Any one can raise a bill and then have it passed. It can ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court if it gets that far, but there's nothing in the constitution that says you can't try to come up with a law.
Re: (Score:2)
Except if you actually read the first amendment 'coming up with' a law exactly what it restricts. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
I think "shall make no law" is kind of clear. It is not "make a law but don't expect it to stick if someone challenges it". While some la
Re: (Score:2)
Except if you actually read the first amendment 'coming up with' a law exactly what it restricts. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
I think "shall make no law" is kind of clear. It is not "make a law but don't expect it to stick if someone challenges it".
It makes no practical difference. If the law is not struck down as unconstitutional by someone then it stands. The Supreme Court isn't running time-jumping agents to go back and stop you before it's passed, and no cop is going to listen to "but that law is unconstitutional" as they cart you off or every loonie in the country would be exempt from arrest.
Re: (Score:3)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
If you really want to nitpick the first amendment, take a look at that first word, "Congress." It doesn't say "government" but specifically "Congress."
Now think about what that implies. The amendment directly specifies a branch of the Federal government and states what it can not do. No where in the amendment does it specify state or local governments. If you take the amendment as written then local and state governments can freely restrict speech, the press, religion, assembly, and petitions.
Ye
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, there it is in Section One. I never noticed that.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the First Amendment there to PREVENT the Government from doing this nonsense?
This move, attempts to actually legitimize that online cesspool of hype and bullshit that we like to call a "21st Century Town Square."
I'd much rather the Government remember we still have actual Town Squares. And actual Town Halls. And we still elect and put actual humans in them.
Stop trying to legitimize the digital town square. And GET fucking social media classified as entertainment and nothing more. You've got a better chance of eradicating Chicago crime by this weekend than you do cleaning up soc
Re: The Constitution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably facebook etc have sidestepped the traditional responsibility and liability that comes with being a publisher. They have done this by not actually publishing but by filtering what is seen on their sites. They are operating under section 230 of the communications decency act without actually living up to the spirit of the law .
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
Just about every policy goal stated is a fail. Twitter especially so as the service is little more than a means to organize harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" without actually living up to the spirit of the law"
Policy and goals of the law??
There is little doubt that what twitter / facebook do is the same as publishing a viewpoint. The only difference is the origin. Instead of directly generating the propaganda they encourage and promote others to generate it.
Re: (Score:3)
Gab, Parler, and Subscribestar are not shut down. Gab, Parler, and Subscribestar do not run on Twitter or Facebook or Patreon. I don't know which "critical infrastructure" you intend to refer to, but cloud computing providers are a dime a dozen, and that's ignoring the possibility of standing up your own
Re: (Score:2)
The law is framing an interesting legal theory. It is defining protected categories that an entity has to provide service.
No, that is a red herring. No one is barred service because of their gender, religion, race or political affiliation - they are barred service because of their speech or actions which the service-provider doesn't want to be associated with. Just like how a landlord can't evict someone based on their religion, but the person can be evicted for playing loud religious music 24/7 because that breaks the warranty of habitability.
Legally extending the protective categories protections to their actions too is one
Re: The Constitution (Score:2)
I personally don't agree with the law. I think platforms should
Re: (Score:2)
I do think platforms should be transparent on their moderation and how they algorithmically display content. There is a great deal of power in how these platforms can shape public opinion and it is in the public interest to have that transparency.
If the platforms doesn't have a leeway in how they moderate we will see the rules-lawyering increase magnitudes. It would be nice for a platform to be totally transparent in how they run their service, but that's something that I see as impractical for the reason I mentioned.
I don't see an easy way to solve that problem because human nature is what human nature is. I do agree though that the service providers can be better in how they communicate their decisions since in many cases it just says "You've been
Re: (Score:2)
What? You expect the GQP to follow the Constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the First Amendment there to PREVENT the Government from doing this nonsense?
Not according to Marsh v Alabama. Government exists to protect our rights.
justice Amy Coney Barrett (Score:4, Informative)
This wasn't a gotcha question. It's something you learn in 6th grade. Maybe you forgot it. You're not a judge. You're not sitting for a confirmation hearing for the Supreme Count. She was. Is.
So we have a Supreme Court Justice who can't answer middle school level questions about the 1st amendment. Our system of gov't is broken. Fundamentally. Voters need to change how and who they vote for to fix it or we're going to see more bills like this, and they're going to be upheld.
And it won't matter what the 1st amendment is. The people in charge of you don't care.
Vote. While you still can. Vote in your primary. Watch out for pro-corporate candidates. Do some googling before you vote. If you can't find clear stances on common policies that's a red flag. Never listen to a politician. They use body language and acting techniques to trick you. Look up transcripts and read what they said. Tell everyone you can to do the same.
Stop demanding your politicians and your news entertain you. Politics is supposed to be boring. Same for news. If you're having fun you're being tricked.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sounds like they are attempting to enforce the First Amendment.
"I hereby enforce you saying the things I want you to say. Your first amendment rights are the freedom to say exactly what I want you to say, no more and no less. Every company must put forward my government required speech to show that they are free to follow the rules I set."
Hi Vlad. Good to see the nasty censors aren't stopping you posting from Russia by blocking your internet.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two parts this.
There is the constitutional question of compelled speech - which ultimately being a constitution question should decide the matter. Just like a baker should not be compelled to decorate a gay wedding cake, a social media platform should not have to trumpet viewpoints they disagree with.
However there is the matter of CDA-230 which has conferred special protection upon social media (and other types of sites) from civil actions like libel which has been traditionally held not be prote
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Informative)
There is the constitutional question of compelled speech - which ultimately being a constitution question should decide the matter.
It was decided ages and ages ago:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). (It was a case where the US Supreme Court ruled -- in the darkest days of WW2 -- that schools cannot force schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because in this country we don't compel speech.
Also:
Even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with a compulsory access law and would not be forced to forgo publication of news or opinion by the inclusion of a reply, the Florida statute fails to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of its intrusion into the function of editors. A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a new paper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public official -- whether fair or unfair -- constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). (It was a case where a local law was that if a newspaper printed an editorial about a political candidate, they had to run any response letter from the candidate also)
Just like a baker should not be compelled to decorate a gay wedding cake, a social media platform should not have to trumpet viewpoints they disagree with.
No, those couldn't be more different. Neither a baker nor a social media site is permitted to engage in discrimination on various criteria, such as race, religion, national origin, and alienage. So, for example, a baker cannot refuse to bake a wedding cake for black people because they are black and it would require putting, say, a wedding topper showing a black couple on the top of the cake.
In Colorado, state law also said that businesses can't discriminate on gender and sexual orientation, among other things. So a baker can't refuse on those bases either. So if a baker wants to refuse to make a cake with a viewpoint he disagrees with, (which is fine) he'd better be damn sure that his refusal is based on speech and is not discriminatory with regard to the customer. It's a narrow -- perhaps impossible -- needle to thread. For example, if Sam and Pat order a cake reading "Congratulations on your wedding, Sam and Pat" and the baker accepts the order when it is placed in person by Samuel and Patricia, but then rejects it when he discovers it is really for Samantha and Patty, that's pretty clearly not a refusal based on the speech, which is identical either way, but on who the customer is.
CDA being a federal law make it challenge but states should look for ways to impose civil defamation like liabilities on websites, or otherwise force them to be truly common carriers if they expect liability protection.
The federal law preempts state law, and websites cannot be common carriers, so your idea, stupid as it is, is a non-starter. And yet right-wing state legislatures, stupid as they are, are trying anyway.
That isnt how 1A works for anyone else!
47 USC 230 applies for every single provider of information online and for their users. It's hardly Facebook's fault if you aren't taking advantage of your equal right to be protected by
Re: (Score:2)
It is funny you bring up "Vlad" as Russia is currently heavily censoring its media and internet which you want the US to do. You have a lot in common.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think he's Russian? I've met enough Trump supporters to know that it's entirely possible he's a reed blooded American who actually believes this stupid shit.
I'm not saying he's literally Russian (or that he's literally Vladimir Putin, which is what my post suggested - as a joke). What I'm saying is that forced speech is often the preserve of people like Putin and his request is something I'd expect to come direct from that guy.
There's a small, reasonable discussion to be had about things like "common carriers" and whether we should be building that kind of thing and enforcing free speech through them. As it is now, though, social media works more like a newsp
Re: (Score:3)
Political parties are quite diverse in the people they represent and there is even substantial disagreement within the parties. Your assumptions about what people believe, based on assumed political party affiliation, is a form of bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Constitution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What we now think of as ISPs -- Comcast, Verizon, Cox, ATT, etc. -- those are common carriers.
Social media decidedly is not, and is essentially like a newspaper that does nothing (or almost nothing) other than run letters to the editor, constantly. In fact, social media providers' habit of promoting or demoting posts for various reasons indicates they're engaged in editorial work and not common carriage.
It's well-litigated that the government cannot dictate what articles and letters the media does or does
Re: (Score:2)
Except that news papers don't enjoy complete liability protection even for content on the editorial page. The editor still has a responsibility to not print defamatory content at least if they are going so far as a plainly counter factual statement -
See:
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co
-but for some stupid reason the morons in congress (years after that decision) decided if you do it on the internet it should be okay. That a dumb positions and the law should be repealed. .
Re: The Constitution (Score:2)
When the NYT starts letting the public post to their editorial page, then we can start treating news papers and social media the same in regards to third party content.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that news papers don't enjoy complete liability protection even for content on the editorial page.
As long as the editorial page is online, they do indeed enjoy complete protection. (Actually it's only for third-party information; even social media sites are liable for their own first-party generated content)
That a dumb positions and the law should be repealed
You clearly don't think so. I know this because you're posting about it on the Internet.
Without protection, a site like Slashdot has only two options based on the status of the law before 47 USC 230 was enacted:
1) Review all posts before they go up for absolutely anything that could render the site
Re: (Score:3)
But they are not a 'news' source
Tragically, lots of people get news from social media.
And newspapers don't have to do their own reporting. They can rely entirely on wire services and even rephrasing articles from other sources (while being careful of the 'hot news' rule, but we're clearly not talking about very good papers here).
Your comment about protocol layers undercuts your argument, frankly. You, a user, operate at a different protocol layer. Does that mean I can make you repeat anything I say? The distinction is very clear: ISPs
Re: The Constitution (Score:3)
Bingo. Also, even if the internet was common carrier this still wouldn't pass muster as there are numerous alternatives to Twitter and Facebook who enforce different ToS. People are more than free to post to Gab, Parler, Truth Social or start their own site even (Truth just used the open source Mastodon system) . No one has a right to a large audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Also, even if the internet was common carrier this still wouldn't pass muster as there are numerous alternatives to Twitter and Facebook who enforce different ToS. People are more than free to post to Gab, Parler, Truth Social or start their own site even (Truth just used the open source Mastodon system) . No one has a right to a large audience.
I still think the best way to handle these issues is to not allow platforms for anti-trust reasons to win the Internet. Don't allow anyone to have more than an xx% of marketshare of eyeballs.
Alternatives exist but they are not where nearly everyone is. Market share of alternatives are in rounding error territory. People don't have to listen to you but you still have a right to exist in the town square. Freedom of speech is worthless when you are only allowed to speak to yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like they are attempting to enforce the First Amendment.
Sounds like they are throwing a wrench in their leader's Truth social. If you have much butthurt that Twitter won't allow you to organize your revolt, you need to read the TOS of Your guy's work of art https://help.truthsocial.com/l... [truthsocial.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So what we have is that the powers that be have updated their beloved Orwell manual of governance:
War Is Peace - as in, bombing for democracy
Freedom Is Slavery - as in, your fcking student loans
Ignorance Is Strength - as in, fact/emotion ratio in mainstream media
Censorship is Freedom of Speech - as in, wrongthink gets you deplatformed
You can
Re: (Score:2)
Sad part is they just need to enforce Section 230 as written. These censorious platforms are obviously publishers, and should be held accountable for what they publish, including all the libel, misinformation, malinformation, and disinformation pushed by the current administration.
Let the lawsuits begin.
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Informative)
Sad part is they just need to enforce Section 230 as written. These censorious platforms are obviously publishers
Said the man who hasn't read it.
Let's read it now:
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.
So ... they may obviously be publishers, but they cannot be treated as publishers. This means they cannot be held liable, in the way that publishers are, for libel blah blah blah.
That was easy. I look forward to your next post complaining that your shoelaces are bad because they don't tie themselves and you're all out of ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
that right is a passthrough built on a dubious claim it is speaking on behalf of the shareholders
Yeah, I'm sure that Facebook shareholders are crying all the way to the bank about how badly the site has been moderating speech.
No, they're just pissed off about practical limits on ad-tracking and there not being enough kids using it.
FB rights don't outweigh the rights of the millions of the people using the platform however,
They do on Facebook. The users have a right to keep the government from messing with their posts, and indeed the government is pretty good about that. Users have no such right against Facebook.
especially considering the people being silenced almost certainly INCLUDES shareholders.
Yeah, that's not really how that works. Owning a share of Facebook lets you have
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
social media companies get to censor whatever they see fit, and call this censorship exercising their freedom of speech
And they're right, so I'm sure that's upsetting for you too.
You can argue on technicalities that this is not really censorship, but in effect there is no meaningful difference. After you are kicked out of the big platforms, you can as well go and exercise your freedom of speech by shouting into a hole in the ground. If there is nobody to uphold your right of freedom of speech, how can you say that freedom of speech exists?
Real easily.
Let's wind the clock back to before the Internet existed. In the 1960s if a big newspaper like the New York Herald Tribune or the Los Angeles Examiner refused to print your letter to the editor or an article that you submitted, you would equally have to shout into a hole in the ground. There's nothing special about the Internet and there's never ever been a rule that anyone has to help anyone else in the exercise of free speech -- in part because such a duty would violate the free speech right of the person compelled to help, and it would also violate their right of free association, as both rights include the negative right to not speak and to not associate.
Your solution back then was to start your own newspaper or to hand out leaflets on the street. That's still your solution now, except you can also start your own social media site ... with blackjack and hookers, as the old saying goes.
A society that silences dissenting voices loses the ability to fix their problems and respond to new challenges.
Dissenting voices aren't being silenced, they're being ignored. That's part of a healthy society too, because many dissenting voices are just crap. (Listening to a dude on the street rant about how the British Royals are secret lizard people from the hollow center of the Earth does not help us fix real problems or respond to real challenges.)
If dissenting voices want to be heard, it's their job to be loud enough. They have to earn it. What could be more American than that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and it has always been that way. It is everyone's right to not associate with someone with weird taste in TV shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they are attempting to enforce the First Amendment.
Quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they are attempting to enforce the First Amendment.
Not exactly. It's common carrier treatment, by which a company that delivers a product through a network which it uniquely owns may not discriminate among customers of that network. The electric company may not decide to stop serving Democrats.
The legality of this classification will depend on whether courts agree that Facebook is a vital service
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they are attempting to enforce the First Amendment.
The first amendment - and similar pieces of regulation - prevents the government from interfering with free speech and the free press. This law is exactly that - the government trying to interfere. So by getting the law struck down, the first amendment is enforced.
When Twitter doesnâ(TM)t ban Putin, butâ (Score:2)
bans the US President, people recognize that as wrong. Invading another country and mass arresting protestors is certainly much more wrong than âoehe said something mean.â
Re: (Score:2)
What has Putin said on Twitter that has breached the Terms of Service?
Re:When Twitter doesnâ(TM)t ban Putin, but (Score:2)
What has Putin said on Twitter that has breached the Terms of Service?
Ah, because that suddenly matters now?
“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
That was literally a tweet from Trump that was classified by Twitter as "Glorification of Violence." Meanwhile, Putin leads actual violence. Give me a fucking break.
Re: (Score:2)
It was two tweets, in a specific context of time, and sure, the implications of which were certainly open to interpretation. The one Twitter made wasn't incomprehensible unless one was being either disingenuous or simply incapable of a modicum of objective distancing. You can disagree with it, but the logic is parsable.
Twitter doesn't ban people for inciting violence on their own time, it bans people for violating their policies. If you want to make a case, show us some tweets from Putin that violate their
Re: (Score:2)
Endless political attacks against a sitting President. Accusations of massive amounts of COVID harm while his successor racks up even more. Multiple failed impeachments, all while parroting a Russia, Russia, Russia narrative that turned out to be complete and total bullshit.
There is nothing "sweet" that lead up to the actions of January 6th, just as there is nothing "sweet" about BLM and Antifa marching on, and torching American cities, while the delusional media calls it 'mostly peaceful'.
We The People,
Re: (Score:2)
Endless political attacks against a sitting President.
You don't say...
Re: (Score:2)
bans the US President, people recognize that as wrong. Invading another country and mass arresting protestors is certainly much more wrong than âoehe said something mean.â
Perhaps now you recognize Twitter for what it is; an American political weapon.
Twitter doesn't give a shit about Putin, because it hasn't been ordered to.
Re:When Twitter doesnâ(TM)t ban Putin, but (Score:2)
Perhaps now you recognize Twitter for what it is; an American political weapon.
Twitter doesn't give a shit about Putin, because it hasn't been ordered to.
Even as conspiracy theories go, that one is just extra pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter didn't ban the US president for being mean, they banned the US president for violating their terms of service. To wit, he was both inciting violence and deliberately spreading disinformation. When Putin does the same thing he will likely be banned with the same explanation. But Putin is much smarter than Trump, not that this is saying anything really, so he is capable of navigating such restrictions in a way that Trump isn't.
Re: When Twitter doesnâ(TM)t ban Putin, but&a (Score:2)
Putin has several quasi-legitimate news organizations and an army of sympathetic hackers. He has no need for social media to spread threats of violence and misinformation.
Re: When Twitter doesnâ(TM)t ban Putin, but&a (Score:2)
Putin has several quasi-legitimate news organizations and an army of sympathetic hackers. He has no need for social media to spread threats of violence and misinformation.
Trump had the most watched TV "news" station in the country and an army of enthusiastic dumbshits, he had no theoretical need for social media either but he's not smart enough to fully use the other means which were at his disposal. Nor, apparently, were the other people in his administration engaging in messaging. He always had to use the personal touch, which is on-brand for him but also very stupid in many cases.
Wrong Move. (Score:2)
We still have actual Town Squares. And Town Halls. And leaders in them.
Make the 21st century cesspool of hype and bullshit that you want to call a "town square", worthless. THAT is the correct way to deal with this.
You want social media? Fine. Call it what it is; entertainment, and nothing more.
Re: Wrong Move. (Score:2)
I'm waiting for interviewees to start challenging the talking heads when they promote Twitter content.
"@realtalk69 isn't a real person. It's a bot that tricked you into quoting it on national TV. I don't respond to bots."
The party of small government (Score:5, Insightful)
Suddenly wants the heavy hand of government when their feelings are hurt over the actions of private companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly? They are ALWAYS crying about how they want the government to do things... just not the things it's doing. Right-wingers are CONSTANTLY saying there oughta be a law to address something, the cops oughta do something about something... Just never them
wat (Score:2)
...most political bias comes from users and not platforms [iu.edu], and "social media platforms have actually amplified right-leaning voices algorithmically" [variety.com] because they only care about engagement, which produces more clicks and views and thus more ad revenue.
Yes, frien
Re: (Score:2)
...most political bias comes from users and not platforms [iu.edu], and "social media platforms have actually amplified right-leaning voices algorithmically" [variety.com] because they only care about engagement, which produces more clicks and views and thus more ad revenue.
Yes, friends, we know beyond any doubt that social media is actually friendlier to conservative speech than liberal speech, but not for any political reason — social media companies don't have morality to cause political leanings — it's only because being that way is profitable.
You are right, but this is about securing 1st amendment rights of free speech for Republicans and silencing literally everybody else. Throwing facts and reality at these people is completely pointless because they see themselves as patriots on a holy crusade to save US America from government that isn't dominated by them
Rules for thee, but not for me (Score:2)
Sen. Greg Dolezal, a Cumming Republican who is sponsoring the bill. Dolezal said companies could still pull down lewd, obscene or offensive materials.
You have to let me say what I like, but I can still prevent you from saying what I don't like.
It's obvious (Score:2)
"But the technology industry says the measure is illegal, in part because it would unconstitutionally make private companies host speech they don't agree with."
Okay, I'm good with that, now they have to take legal responsibility for the content of all posts because they agree with them.
Three things (Score:2)
1: Being an asshole who acts like the rules don't apply to you doesn't mean you're being censored. It means you're being an asshole who acts like the rules don't apply to you and you're being slapped down for violating the terms of service -- that you agreed to when signing up -- for the site.
2: Free speech rights only apply to the government, not private entities
3: Florida already passed a law like this and it was immediately struck down by the courts, so this is nothing more than a political stunt, e.g. c
Moral panics will continue until morale improves (Score:2)
Alternate Headline (Score:2)
"In lieu of actual work Georgia Senate writes down pointless things on paper which will be instantly thrown out by the Supreme Court"
Seriously if I wasted time like that at work I expect to lose my job. And yes I'm posting on Slashdot on the clock, *THAT* is how dumb this law is.
Republican party is done (Score:4, Insightful)
It's unfortunate that there is no party in this country which actually represents people who believe in limited government and freedom anymore.
The best part of this is that they're trying to call social media companies common carriers when republicans opposed the label for ISPs, which absolutely 100% beyond question are common carriers.
It will be interesting to see how all this fake news stuff develops. At the time of the FCC faff over common carriers I said that republicans, more than anyone else, were shooting themselves in the foot by trying to shake off the common carrier label. It would be absolutely horrible for the country, but unbelievably hilarious for me, if the government started trying to push this kind of regulation down to ISPs, or if ISPs started taking this on themselves. Unlikely, I know.
Re: (Score:3)
It's unfortunate that there is no party in this country which actually represents people who believe in limited government and freedom anymore.
The issue with belief in limited government is that government works around 'limited' part by forming private-public partnerships.
Talk radio - A Common carrier? (Score:3)
Fine, declare talk radio and conservative news shows as common carriers too. Those fuckers only take calls from fellow right wingers who would affirm their viewpoints or from people left wing that they know cannot properly articulate. If talk show hosts can screen who they have on their show why cant Twitter?
Re: Would this be permitted by phone companies? (Score:2)
There's already a fair amount of precedent for who can observe the contents of phone calls as wiretapping and those are considered private speech.
The analogy of that would be if Twitter was banning people for what they said in DMs without anyone reporting it, which I have not heard happening.
Re: (Score:2)
You really don’t understand what a public utility is.
Re: (Score:2)
Could Verizon, ATT or T-Mobile legally shut off your phone service because of what you saying or said on a phone call?
How is it different? Voice carriers and social media are hosting communications.
One is a regulated title II provider of telecommunications services and others are information service with basically no restrictions or requirements.
Re:Interesting to see the flip-flop of both sides (Score:4, Insightful)
It's strange to see the liberal side arguing about "private businesses cannot be forced to carry content they disagree with" while they force bakers to bake cakes they don't want to make because of "public accommodations".
The only thing strange is your use of "public accommodations" instead of "protected class" which is what the cake was fundamentally about.
A baker can refuse to bake you anything if it's just because he thinks you're a cunt. Likewise a private organisation can remove content they disagree with. Providing either don't discriminate against a protected class they are fine.
Re: (Score:3)
The people "asking" them to bake a cake *were* being cunts, using lawfare to target a religious business owner.
None of us were there for the initial conversation so none of us knows who was being the bigger asshole. But refusing to make a cake because of some gay messaging on it tells us who's way too involved in other people's decisions and lives. The would-be cake-buyers may indeed be massive assholes, but we know beyond any doubt that the cake-makers are.
Re: Interesting to see the flip-flop of both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
If your religion requires you discriminate, then find a job where you don't work with customers.
If your religion required you to slap everyone who greets you, then you can't run a public shop. Sorry.
Just like Christian usury rules keep fundamentalists out of banking, these are YOUR beliefs. You gotta deal with the fallout, not polite society.
It's Interesting because that didn't happen (Score:3)
We said "you can't discriminate based on immutable characteristics". That's very different than "you can ban people who you disagree with".
Free speech goes both ways. Freedom of Association is one of the 5 freedoms guaranteed by the 1st. Please educate yourself on basic civics before commenting online. You're adding nothing to the discussion when y
Re: Be Careful What you Wish For (Score:2)
Sounds great to me. The Internet isn't for discussing things with the world. Social media is anathema to its organizing principles of a distributed network.
Re: (Score:3)
This kind of attitude is precisely what's pushing me and many liberals I know toward the right.
I've been noticing this too. Many moderate liberals are increasingly being turned off to such hate speech as Ricky, and the like, keeps sprouting. It will be very interesting coming this November to see how many Democrats vote with the right.
Re: (Score:3)
I often wonder how long this will be the deranged socialist line. If you don't agree with my line of thinking you are a trader. Trader to what? You and your small minded way of thinking?
No, there are no traitors here. Just a small minded idiot named Ricky.