Congressional Democrats Prepare To Introduce Net Neutrality Bill (cnet.com) 218
Democrats on Capitol Hill plan to introduce legislation that could restore net neutrality and the Federal Communications Commission's authority to regulate broadband. From a report: With President Joe Biden's pick to be the fifth commissioner at the FCC stalled, two Senate Democrats will introduce the Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act that would codify Obama-era net neutrality rules repealed under President Donald Trump's administration. The renewed effort to pass a federal net neutrality law is being led by Sens. Edward J. Markey from Massachusetts and Ron Wyden from Oregon, according to a press release sent by Markey's office Thursday.
The legislation would reestablish the FCC's authority over broadband infrastructure by reclassifying internet service as a telecommunications service, the press release states. This would mean stricter oversight for broadband companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, The Washington Post reports. Rep. Doris Matsui, a Democrat from California, will introduce companion legislation in the House, George Hatamiya, a spokesman for Matsui, confirmed last week. "I strongly believe that net neutrality principles should form the foundation of an open internet," Matsui said in an emailed statement to CNET. "These protections will help defend free expression and innovation -- protecting consumers and securing a more equitable online ecosystem."
The legislation would reestablish the FCC's authority over broadband infrastructure by reclassifying internet service as a telecommunications service, the press release states. This would mean stricter oversight for broadband companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, The Washington Post reports. Rep. Doris Matsui, a Democrat from California, will introduce companion legislation in the House, George Hatamiya, a spokesman for Matsui, confirmed last week. "I strongly believe that net neutrality principles should form the foundation of an open internet," Matsui said in an emailed statement to CNET. "These protections will help defend free expression and innovation -- protecting consumers and securing a more equitable online ecosystem."
Honestly don't care... (Score:2)
Too little help but big enough to be an annoyance.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when "Net Neutrality" was repealed and the Internet as we know it ended?
Ban caps! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ban caps!
Re:The Democrats have a bill for that too (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, without the filibuster, the democrats would think harder about a vote rather than knowing they can vote yes for crappy bills (but bill that sound good) and that republicans can be the bad guys and block it.
But if we get rid of the 60+ seat filibuster, then we should bring back the old method where people can talk and stall and work for their filibuster (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.)
But honestly, the filibuster is important and stops one party from pushing everything through. It's much better to move slowly then to just race legistation through.
Re: (Score:2)
then we should bring back the old method
No need. That still exists.
Re:The Democrats have a bill for that too (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not worth it. Ban the filibuster? Seriously?
Mitch McConnell would not hesitate to abolish the filibuster if it served his purpose and he would do it to the thundering applause of Trumpland so spare us your fake outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
He won't now that Democrats have made it clear that if it weren't for two brave senators they would have gotten rid of the filibuster. And he shouldn't. When one party decides they no longer care for the norms that hold society together, why should the other party be forced to follow them anyway?
So you're right, the first thing that happens once Republicans take back the White House will be the filibuster going away, and people will agree with this position because it will be the right position to take. The
Re: (Score:2)
When one party decides they no longer care for the norms that hold society together, why should the other party be forced to follow them anyway?
You're talking about the party that decided stacking the supreme court with like-minded people was more important than the norm where a "lame duck" president doesn't make an appointment? Just as a single example.
Re: (Score:3)
Getting rid of the filibuster is a bad idea. That doesn't mean keeping it *as it is* a good idea.
I've sometimes mused that if you were devising a constitution today, it might be wise to consult game designers, because the problems the filibuster addresses, and in turn creates, amount to issues with game balance and restricting player abuse. The framers expected their Constitution to prevent the formation of factions in Congress, so even though they saw restraint of power as an important principle, they di
Re:The Democrats have a bill for that too (Score:5, Informative)
You don't seem to understand. The filibuster we're talking about here isn't like that scene from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where a Senator, driven by their love of their country and their commitment to its people, holds the floor until they collapse to temporarily halt the legislative process.
No, the version of the filibuster we're talking about can be done by email. "I filibuster" and that's it. Anything they don't like, or they think will help their opponents, now requires 60 votes. That's what will come to an end.
The "talking filibuster" would still be an option.
Re: The Democrats have a bill for that too (Score:2)
Senate vs Senate (Score:2)
If the Senate is preventing the FCC commission from being filled, then why would anyone predict that same Senate might eventually pass this bill?
Re: (Score:3)
So I've got this soup, it's very spicy with a bit of flavor, like nothing you've had. It's like nothing you've had before or will ever get again. And I make it with roadkill, because that meat that's been in the sun awhile until it turns green is really tangy! Then I toss in some bugs, because a variety of protein is great. Now not everyone likes it, but a lot of people do, especially those who are tired of the same old thing who don't believe the part about roadkill, they think I'm joking. But some of th
Re: (Score:2)
What polls show that? No polls show that. A lot of pundits were expecting Democrat voters to "become energized" over the Roe decision or something, but all the evidence is that the exact opposite has happened. Republican voters are highly energized at the idea of finally being able to get laws they want passed and not blocked by activist judges, and Democrats are demoralized by an incredibly unpopular president. Biden is polling at all-time lows - lower than President Trump ever polled - and the generic con
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.newsweek.com/democ... [newsweek.com]
Care to retract your statement now that I have shown you are wrong? Or will you double down and argue more?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Newsweek? That's your source?
Even if we assume that polls have momentarily swung in the direction of the Democrats (which they have not), they would have been before today's news, which consisted of the US officially entering into a recession and a whole lot of bad earnings news on top of that. It will take a while for that to be reflected in polling.
Since someone mentioned FiveThirtyEight, if you look at their top story, it's about how black people are joining the Republican party [fivethirtyeight.com]. Below that is a
Re: (Score:2)
538 has the Dems keeping the senate in their latest poll. https://projects.fivethirtyeig... [fivethirtyeight.com]
They could be wrong but I am not lying. I hope that makes you sad. You seem like a person who deserves to be sad all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.newsweek.com/democ... [newsweek.com]
You want me to play the sad trombone noise for you?
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest snag is voters who just stay home. Why bother, because they think it's all rigged, they're all corporate stooges, or what difference can one vote make. Especially in boring old midterms when it's a race between anonymous and no-name. The one thing that Republicans have always been better at than Democrats is getting out the vote. Rah, rah, rah, the old people come out to vote and they tend to be Republican, and the young people stay home and wonder why things are shit and they tend to skew De
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I support mandatory voting, or more accurately "mandatory turning in a ballot"
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I support mandatory voting, or more accurately "mandatory turning in a ballot"
Only if "None Of The Above" is available as a valid choice.
Re: (Score:3)
it absolutely is or it wouldnt work.
can't compel speech i.e. a vote from people, but we can mandate they mail in a ballot like we mandate people have to file taxes.
the ballot can be 100% empty.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a counter-argument, just emotional grandstanding. No one is forcing you to actually vote for anyone, you just have to mail in your piece of paper, exactly like your taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no my good sir. I would bundle that with universal mail in voting and plenty and plenty of ballot drop boxes. I want maximum american swole voter participation baby. I want voting to be a national holiday with barbeques and fireworks. drive your big truck to the polls, patriots unite behind the glorious orgy of democracy,
Why do you hate america so much?
I'm not so sure about that (Score:5, Insightful)
I get it life is exhausting and human beings are really good at taking mental shortcuts. But we need to start having serious discussions with people who vote like that about the personal consequences to them and their immediate families. People need to understand that treating politics like reality TV is going to get them killed
Re: I'm not so sure about that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... they think it's all rigged, they're all corporate stooges...
You haven't given us any reason to believe it isn't.
If you have a convincing argument that it isn't just a show between "Team Red" and "Team Blue", please feel free to present it.
Otherwise, I maintain that we remain an oligarchy with a thin veneer of choice designed to keep the consumers pacified.
My primary evidence comes from Princeton University: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf [princeton.edu]
Re: Nobody's expecting the Senate to pass it (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids don't get puberty blockers without 12-36 months of therapy and signoff from more than one doctor.
Under Casey/Roe elective abortions were only mandated federally up to 23 weeks. That was literally the decided case law.
You can have your valid opinions on both these issues one way or another but if you are so easily willing to lie about plain facts why should I take you seriously about anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to sidestep my point entirely and also concede it, thanks!
I also am fine with 20-24 weeks for my own reasons which I feel are grounded in good reasoning and consistent with how we value life in the real world. I could also come to compromise position to push that back with certain concessions, but all I seem to find is "conception or bust" so how do we compromise?
If there was a law enshrining first trimester elective abortions federally and leaving anything after that up to the states would you suppor
Re: Nobody's expecting the Senate to pass it (Score:2, Troll)
Maybe, if I could be convinced that a plausible constitutional mechanism for such a law exists, and whatever line is drawn is drawn in a way that doesn't gross me out based on the actual stage of fetal development up to that point and the fact that the later you set the threshold, the more like a human thing you're killing looks.
Or maybe I'd play the caricature prolifer and claim not that life begins at implantation, not at conception, not at penetration or even arousal; no! life clearly begins at the momen
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for making my point again!
Since the idea of "what is a human" is a philosophical one and not one borne in factual claims the line is kind of up to us from a moral and ethical perspective. the constitution says nothing about abortion one way or another so this is legislative matter unless it hits the supreme court (and they already said congress should pass a law if they want to keep it)
I find it morally abhorrent to force a woman to hold a child and give birth under penalty of legal action. I also
Re: Nobody's expecting the Senate to pass it (Score:2)
Yes and no. What I think you're overlooking is that there is a wide variety of what constitutes the kind of "conscious experience" that we deem worthy of some level of legal protection.
It's permissible to pull the plug on a braindead coma patient, but not permissible to shoot a pet dog for shits and giggles, or to put a mentally disabled individual out of his misery.
I'm not equating human and animal life, nor am I asserting that the penalty for killing a dog is the same as the penalty for killing a human, b
Re: (Score:2)
lot of typing to avoid the central question;
if and when is a fetus worthy of moral consideration
everything else is irrelevant, that is the central question. it is the only question.
when it starts to look superficially human to medical necessity is a completely subjective and in my opinion functionally useless metric with no real backing of anything other than pure emotion. it's so nebulous that it cant actually be deabted, youve given yourself a position you cannot lose or be talked down from, no matte
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, so i stand by my original compromise;
firs trimester abortions are legal countrywide, totally elective, fully covered, can get one at a hospital or anywhere.
after that it's up to the states.
I would only have a carveout for life of the mother in danger, at that point its a medical issue and up to the doctor and the mother.
if you cant agree to that then i dont know what to tell you, i think i could get 80% of the country on board with that.
saying no abortion at all or conception is life is just as bra
Re: Nobody's expecting the Senate to pass it (Score:2)
If the alternative is "abortions for all" then I can agree to that compromise.
If the alternative is "no abortions for anyone" then I need to be convinced more, and I don't guarantee everything.
"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others" may be shrewd politics and good pragmatism but it isn't really a serious answer to a moral question.
Re: Nobody's expecting the Senate to pass it (Score:2)
The question is philosophical so some sort of compromise is the only solution. Everyone's moral framework is their own. Science can't answer it, religion can't answer it.
Fact of the matter is if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions to the smallest amount possible then there are a lot of other things we should be focusing on with how we handle education, contraception, adoption, family care, health care, etc. The laws around the act itself are putting the cart before the horse so to say. Banning
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, if I could be convinced that a plausible constitutional mechanism for such a law exists.
It's called Article I, nutjob.
Re: (Score:2)
i dont think you should get chemotherapy ever even if you have cancer. you people are sick.
Re: (Score:2)
And for the mass economic sabotage known as "public health measures."
What
Re: Nobody's expecting the Senate to pass it (Score:2)
Correct. This is one of the many differences between adults and children.
Congressional Republicans prepare to block it (Score:2)
too much depends on the net now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Online shopping is kind of hit or miss these days. It's pretty hard to find anything good on Amazon, Walmart, etc. without it being from a company named XYLOTEE, POMOR, QUUU, etc. along with 30,488 glowing 4- and 5-star reviews by clearly fake reviewers who just happened to have a brand new account and that is their only review of the product when the product has only been around for less than one month. Third-party sellers are a plague. Random, unvetted online reviewers are a plague too. Internet comme
Re: (Score:2)
But DOES it?
Everyone is quick to make this statement, as though it's a proven fact. Yet we still have a whole generation of elderly people who don't own or use a computer at all, and they manage to survive without one.
Not only that, but I can't think of a single instance where I was trying to pay a bill for a service and my only option was to pay "online"?
I understand the motivation to regulate Internet connections like public utilities, but never quite thought it was appropriate. All of our public utilitie
Re: (Score:2)
You know, maybe they should do that with food too (it's pretty necessary). Clothes? Maybe computers, I'd say.
Hell, shouldn't everything have their price set by the government so that there's no gouging or greed?
I mean, from each according to their means, of course.
fine print (Score:2)
Look at the fine print before drawing any conclusions. In all likelihood, this will be designed to allow greater political censorship, and to push various Democrat pet projects such as broadband "equity."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the fine print before drawing any conclusions. In all likelihood, this will be designed to allow greater political censorship, and to push various Democrat pet projects such as broadband "equity."
Surely you've already read the fine print and can point to examples of "greater political censorship" or "push various Democrat pet projects"?
Get ready for a compliance fee (Score:2)
Take a close look at all the line items on your ISP bill now. Compare that to the bill after this gets passed. You will see a new net-neutrality compliance fee on there. The cost of proving to the government that they are complying with the law will get passed onto the customer. Nothing else will change though. You won't notice any difference in the product.
Re: (Score:3)
For those not paying attention (Score:2)
Facebook, etc.
Democrats: No ordering them to carry stuff they don't want! They have free speech!
Republicans: No! Common carrier must carry!
Net Neutrality
Democrats: Yes! Order them to carry stuff they don't want at same price!
Republicans: No! N9 common carrier! Must not pay same rate!
Neither side cares about these as philosophical positions.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you suggest the government involve itself in Facebook/Twitter/Gab/Truth or any social network without creating 1st amendment moral hazards or tying up the court system in an endless morass of cases?
Repealing 230 is only going to have the opposite effects, making these companies liable for speech financially is only going to force them to clamp down on anything remotely actionable. They are certainly not going to value your speech over their own profits
Dave Chappelle is a multi-millionaire. Brett Kavanaugh suffered so much he only has a lifetime appointment to one of the most prestigious and exclusive institutions on the planet. They're doing fine.
Keeping ISP's under Title II actually makes a ton of sense and it's corporate opposition that has prevented it from being that way for so long in the first place. Social media networks, celebrities, obsession over cancel culture are just red herring distractions being thrown own to find something, anything to counter this for no other reason than it's being proposed by people with D in front of their names. This is good, like almost un-objectionably good unless you're an establishment ISP I suppose. Are you Comcast/Charter/Cox and writing this?
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Informative)
Moral hazard is the fact that there is speech that has been defined as "illegal" by the legal system. Calls to violence, threats, certain forms of harassment. Platforms are essentially legally compelled to remove these. If they have to take a hands off approach now by another legal mandate if that already banned speech slips through and harm is suffered who is responsible? Now the platform is stuck having to legally evaluate every single action it takes because it is stuck in two different liability cases. This is just one example that legally enforcing speech on private platforms enforces. These things are not going to end up in the courts to decide which is also going to have an even higher chilling effect.
You have to see there is a huge difference between a telephone provider providing nothing more than a line between between parties a public social media platform. It's one to say "just be neutral guys!" and another to craft that into a workable legal framework. That's my point. It's also illegal to call someone on the phone and threaten them even if the phone provider is "neutral".
Given a platform exposing itself to legal liability based on a loose definition of "neutral" or just declaring themselves not neutral and heavily restricting speech, most will jus restrict speech.
As far as Chappele and Kavanaugh is your claim they have been threatened by speech by people on social media platforms? In your position that should be allowed no? Otherwise these platforms need the ability to remove speech. In your scenario Chappelle might have to take individual users to court to get that speech removed.
I am not saying the "free speech" issue isn't an issue, but it has little to do with Title II for ISP's and you bringing it up is in fact a red herring to tie something people would see as "bad" with this legislation so also paint it as "bad". It's wildly transparent.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Informative)
I propose to treat these major content platforms - in terms of awarding them liability protection - like we treat telephone companies, electric companies, etcetera.
This insidious cancer on our freedom of speech should be excised immediately.
You are using empty moralizing, not addressing the actual concerns from an ethical and legal point of view. It's your opinion, which sorry to say and this applies to me too, means jack all in the legal reality.
No, my claim is that there is a pervasive social movement that believes that acting to harm others because they say things you disagree with is acceptable.
This is a cultural issue. You are the one suggesting legal repercussions, back those up or its just complaining. Platforms already have to remove direct threats against these people and they do actually.
I am calling for America as a society to push back on this trend
Again, this is not a problem of social media companies or the legal system. This is a cultural issue and you are the one wanting to apply the heavy hand of the law to fight your cultural war. You are the authoritarian in this case and the one proposing systems that will give us more censorship, not less. You just want to censor the things you don't personally like
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your perspective, but I do consider this a legal issue, just as it would be if an electric company began shutting power off from people who used "its" electrons to disagree with the company owners' politics.
Freedom of speech very much involves the system of incentives our legislators create, and we have clearly been failing to develop mechanisms to guarantee a broad and healthy political dialog available to all citizens. It is up to our legislators to represent our interests and our rights, her
Re: (Score:2)
I am not denying this is an issue. I would support a Federal funded and hosted social media platform that has exactly those values, where people can post whatever the hell they want within the bounds of the law.
What you are asking for is for the government to dictate to these platforms what they can do under threat of legal action. You can say up and down that it's not but you are looking for is a 230 repeal at the end of the day and it won't work the way you think it will.
if I have a website with a comme
Re: (Score:2)
What you are asking for is for the government to dictate to these platforms what they can do under threat of legal action.
Not at all. I am merely suggesting that we incentivize certain behavior of private industry by awarding privileges only to those who comply. That's entirely normal, ethical, and both sides traditionally support this sort of regulatory approach.
if I have a website with a comment section I am supposed to allow anyone to post anything they want on there no matter what?
Only if you are an in
Re: (Score:3)
No, you are wanting to punish those who do not comply. To incentivize would be to give them something for meeting conditions. That is not what you have proposed, at all.
internet-scale
this is meaningless
want to disclaim personal liability for the contents of user communications using your platform as a medium
this is every single forum, site with a comment section or user review system. 230 covers any site where a user can post speech. who draws the line and how?
Re: (Score:2)
To incentivize would be to give them something for meeting conditions.
You mean like the privilege of immunity from liability?
Re: (Score:2)
this tells me all i need to know about the lack of understanding of consequences of what you are proposing.
not having immunity means one is open to litigation or legal action.
Re: (Score:2)
What's an internet?
-_-
Re: (Score:2)
Give it up man, the guy is denser then a rock https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
I had to spend about 10 posts just to get him to grasp that a website's ability to take down content does not come from 230 and has nothing to do with 230's granted immunity from liability social media companies get and everything to do with these company's first amendment rights. I even linked him to the literal text of 230 and asked him to show me where it authorized company's to take down content they dont approve of and even
Re: (Score:2)
skimming through that and... jesus christ... pain, everlasting pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? It seems like if I take your idea, then remove the neutrality requirement, it works even better. Let's look at two examples:
1. Suppose you have no biases. One day, you publish someone else's work (with their permission) along with your own. Thanks to S230, whatever they said
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because the alternative is a dystopia where corporations begin to acquire monopolies or collude in order to deny basic services and rights to individuals who, for one reason or another, appear on their naughty list. It's really that simple, and this isn't some slippery slope argument it's literally happening, today, to tons of everyday Joes and Janes, and even really powerful people at this point.
Suppose you have no biases. One day, you publish someone else's work (with their permission) along with your
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
How about re-asserting America's place as a bastion for free speech, that takes our commitment to open dialog and tolerance seriously?
As a Canadian, it boggles my mind when I read comments like this about the USA needed to "re-assert" itself when it comes to free speech.
Americans have so much free speech it borders on ridiculous. You can march chanting "Jews will not replace us" and you face zero action from the government.
You can sit in front of the White House 24/7 with a large sign that says "Fuck Joe Biden" and no one will arrest you or even tell you to go away.
You can start up a streaming service and shout antivaxx lies all day long and no authorities will knock on your door.
You can staple notices to telephone poles all over town stating that your neighbour is a pedophile and no one will arrest you.
The rest of the world watch what people can say in the USA free from any consequences, things that get you locked up all over the world, and we roll our eyes at any notion that you have lost your place as a "bastion of free speech."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah see when Republicans say "free speech" they many something different than when Democrats do. Democrats want you to be able to say things without fear of government reprisal. You should be able to say "fuck Biden" without being arrested or fined. Republicans want you to be able to say things without social consequences like a business should be allowed to be racist without people boycotting it.
It's kind of the opposite of "free speech" but Republicans have to push their unpopular views some how
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans want you to be able to say things without social consequences
Let me ask you this. Would you consider it fair play if energy companies, which tend to be own by more conservative types, began to only provide electrical service, gasoline, etc. to those whose opinions they agreed with, under the premise that providing service to those they politically disagreed with was enabling moral evil?
Sorry but this is nothing but a path to civil war. If you foreclose avenues of reasonable discourse, you're go
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Informative)
Would you consider it fair play if energy companies, which tend to be own by more conservative types, began to only provide electrical service, gasoline, etc. to those whose opinions they agreed with
They can cut off your power if you violate their terms of usage, or steal electricity. It's all out in plain contract law. People also only have access to one electric provider in their area so they are covered under certain protections.
With social media if you violate their ToS you don't get to use the platform. You agree to that when you sign up.
Unlike the power company I can name off 5 or 6 alternative social media platforms you can go to outside Twitter/Facebook/TikTok/Instagram, why is that not good enough? Do you have a legal right to those platform's audiences?
Re: (Score:2)
They can cut off your power if you violate their terms of usage
That's not strictly true, because the terms they can legally levy on consumers for the provision of service are limited by laws.
Unlike the power company I can name off 5 or 6 alternative social media platforms you can go to outside Twitter/Facebook/TikTok/Instagram, why is that not good enough?
Because that's much more akin to telling someone to go buy a generator. Starting an internet content platform is like creating an entire competing elect
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day if you are causing a disruption to the system or you do not pay, your power can get off. Those legal protections exist because power companies are natural monopolies.
Starting an internet content platform is like creating an entire competing electrical grid infrastructure,
It absolutely is not and that is a ridiculous comparison by the number of alternative platforms out there existing and the effort needed to make them.
Again to restate the question you totally sidestepped; do you have a legal right to the audiences of Facebook/Twitter/TikTok? No one is taking away your right to speech her
Re: (Score:2)
When your argument rests on concepts like, "It is very easy to start a platform to compete with YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple", we may never come to agreement on the finer details.
>Again to restate the question you totally sidestepped; do you have a legal right to the audiences of Facebook/Twitter/TikTok?
I don't think that's germane. What we have a legal right to do is to restrict Section 230 legal immunity only to those platforms that are willing to behave as a content-neutral platform.
Re: (Score:2)
What we have a legal right to do is to restrict Section 230 legal immunity only to those platforms that are willing to behave as a content-neutral platform.
Show me the framework of how that law would work and remain legal without all the drawbacks, knock on effects and chilling effects i described as very real and valid concerns. Who defines "content neutral"? You?
Re: (Score:2)
>Show me the framework of how that law would work and remain legal without all the drawbacks, knock on effects and chilling effects i described as very real and valid concerns.
Sorry, what drawbacks, knock on effects, and chilling effects, specifically? I don't recall any clear articulation of what you think the negative consequence will be to allowing people to speak all legal ideas on the major internet platforms?
Re: (Score:3)
1. Companies rely on advertising to support themselves. Advertisers don't want their brands associated with certain topics or speech (IE most companies dont want to be next to porn)
2. Companies now are not only legally culpable for removing illegal speech (threats, etc) but now are also legally culpable for removing what might be legal speech so how do they decide, if they make a wrong decision their can be sued on either end. Every case will have to go to the courts creating a huge backlog.
3. If there is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're saying the platforms should eliminate any moderation in order to maintain immunity. That's obviously a no-go as it would get filled with spam and porn and stuff which leaves them with the only option being they're liable for all content. We've seen from other cases where services are held liable that they go way overkill in order to avoid lawsuits, such as when a misguided law on sex trafficking was passed, sites like craigslist just removed all postings involving sex.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying the platforms should eliminate any moderation in order to maintain immunity.
Of course not. One approach for creating a heavily curated platform despite the requirement to permit freedom of speech for all citizens would be to task moderators with tagging content, and developing a user interface that allowed users to select certain tags to emphasize or de-emphasize in their feed.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies rely on advertising to support themselves.
Lets be realistic. Advertisers aren't the ones asking for censorship of Donald Trump, or Elon Musk, or Dave Chappelle. I'm not going to indulge that farce. We know from whence these demands for cancellation originate, and it is not with advertisers. It's with activists whose outsized voice belies their extreme fringe nature.
Companies now are not only legally culpable for removing illegal speech (threats, etc) but now are also legally culpable for removing
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be realistic. Advertisers aren't the ones asking for censorship of Donald Trump, or Elon Musk, or Dave Chappelle. I'm not going to indulge that farce. We know from whence these demands for cancellation originate, and it is not with advertisers. It's with activists whose outsized voice belies their extreme fringe nature.
You're avoiding the question and wanting to frame everything in your politics. Bad faith!
No, this is a vast misunderstanding. Nothing I've proposed would logically lead to legal culpability for removing "what might be legal speech".
Then you fundamentally do not understand what you are proposing.
Exposing minors to pornography is a crime, so no that would be criminal. Promoting frauds and scams is also criminal. That leaves non-scam unwelcome commercial advertisements. Since courts have repeatedly ruled that commercial speech carries a lower degree of protection from the first amendment, I see no issue with carving out an exemption that allows services to continue to ban unwelcome commercial speech.
We're not talking about minors here but social media in general. Porn for adults is legal. Do social media sites need to verify state ID's for ever used to ensure no minors use the site? My company got banned but i feel its not a scam, i now can sue twitter and so can every single company who gets banned. You fundamentally misunderstand the legal impli
Re: (Score:2)
>We're not talking about minors here but social media in general.
[etc]
OK bud. Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable discourse can involve boycotts (of British tea and Montgomery busses-- to name two examples), social shunning (of Royalists, abolitionists, and racists--at various times), and garden variety speech like you are doing on Slashdot. Reasonable discourse cannot involve veiled or explicit threats of violence. Yet the Former Guy, eight Senate Republicans, and 139 House Republicans, voted to enable a coup (or autogolpe, if you want to get technical)--and still American Rightists whine that "reasonable d
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Insightful)
If Hobby Lobby can both have and exercise religious beliefs with your approval (at the expense of its employees), then certainly it is none of your business who Twitter shareholders decide to shun. With the exception of "filling stations" you are deliberately conflating natural local monopolies with zero-switching-cost internet businesses. The big difference, of course, is that ideologies shunned by Twitter are the animating force behind Truth, Gab, and 4chan. Anyone can go to those sandboxes to see if they like the smell of piss. The dialog is still happening.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
who Twitter shareholders decide to shun.
The last time I checked, and not counting Jack himself, Twitter's board of directors held a grand total of something like 14 shares of the company, combined. So this is a curious choice of wording - Twitter's shareholders are not making these decisions, and in fact it seems untenable to claim that they are being made for the fiduciary interest of those shareholders.
With the exception of "filling stations" you are deliberately conflating natural local monopolies with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Shareholders can divest, vote, or bring a derivative lawsuit. This is a matter between mature, consenting capitalists, and I'm confident that their interests are well represented (especially since they may have an opportunity to bail at $54 a share). If that still doesn't make sense, then please re-read it when you're sober.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a wonderful day, Frank.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
The object of free speech is to ensure people are able to speak their mind without being silenced by those with power. The use of power to silence people is antithetical to the premise of free speech, regardless of who is using that power; it has nothing to do with "government." The fact that the First Amendment only limits government restrictions on free speech isn't because government power to silence speech is somehow uniquely bad, it's because at the time the major threats to freedom typically came from governments and so the Bill of Rights was designed to put checks on government power as the most likely source of tyranny.
In the most idealized sense, yes, free speech means speech that is free from any consequence, because consequences are what silence people. However, individual response is itself a type of speech, so that's a thorny issue, and in a practical sense you can't realistically do anything about "social consequences" anyway, so you focus efforts on those with the most potential to silence: currently, governments and large corporate interests. And yes, this does mean you need to ensure that idiots and trolls are able to mouth off and be idiotic trolls because to do anything less would be by definition restricting speech. Rights must apply equally to all people, even fools and tools, or they are not rights and can be taken away.
And for the record, I don't vote Republican, I mainly vote third party.
re: free speech (Score:2)
IMO, the biggest reason you see a disconnect here with regards to how much free speech is allowed in America vs how much Americans complain they lack it has to do more with perception of inequity with ability to broadcast a given message or view.
The Facebook censorship is a great example here. While Facebook is privately owned and technically, that means they have the right to censor content or even kick/ban users at will? There's still a sense that due to its popularity, it has a duty to let its users publ
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Funny)
It's practically impossible find these on traditional media.
I'm sorry were you not alive in 2016 and during Trumps term? Every media network covered his rallies and speeches. It became a running joke that CNN would have 30 minutes of an empty podium while waiting for him to speak. Also being someone on Twitter every speech he makes gets all sorts of coverage from the userbase on both sides of the aisle.
Joe Biden is the current actual president and Fox/OAN etc do not cover all his speeches. Should they be forced to by state decree?
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Interesting)
Fox News is only major cable network to not carry Joe Biden’s voting rights speech live [independent.co.uk]
and I am not just singling out Fox or OAN here, lot's of networks use discretion in Presidential speeches. Some are more important than others, Presidents do lot's of pressers every week (even Biden!), not all are deserving of mass coverage.
Not All D.C. TV Stations Broadcast President Biden Press Conference [nexttv.com]
Difference is I am not the one saying this is some sort of conspiracy if they don't air it. This is just freedom of the press and the first amendment, we can't and shouldn't force media companies to air anything really. CSPAN exists for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you said didn't cover it, not didn't carry it live. And yes, there's a difference between not carrying the entire speech live, and blacking out information that it even happened.
>Difference is I am not the one saying this is some sort of conspiracy if they don't air it.
Nor am I, because I couldn't imagine a more disingenuous way to frame what I've been saying. Yikes.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so now it's "cover it live". Well, maybe go back and read your original claim. It's easy to always be right when you can just change your positions on the fly right!
I can go on any major news site right now and read a story about whatever Trump was talking about at his latest rally. Right on CNN i can find an article talking about his July 26th rally speech. What the hell is your point here, you are pivoting everywhere.
And that is exactly what you are claiming. You may not say it directly but infer
Re: (Score:2)
Why Trump’s attempted ‘policy speech’ was such an ugly mess [msnbc.com]
Want to put those goalposts on wheels any more?
NyTimes good enough also?
Trump-Pence Ticket, Torn by Jan. 6, Becomes an Unequal Rivalry [nytimes.com]
I'm not here to say you have to like the way they report on things, but we can always go to NPR or the AP or CSPAN for "neutral" takes cant we?
Re: (Score:2)
I asked for news coverage, you gave me something from the Rachel Maddow blog. MSNBC has defended Rachel Maddow in court from claims of liability for untrue things she has said, by saying that Rachel Maddow does opinion, not factual reporting.
Want to put those goalposts on wheels any more?
I didn't move any goalposts. You said you could find reporting in any major news media. That isn't the case and I believe I've just shown you that it isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
"you didnt give me the exact thing i want the exact way i want but didnt ask for specifically but will ask for it now to win my point"
so bad faith it's not worth the effort anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me make it as clear as possible: you are erecting an infrastructure of state control over media and speech and functionally dissolving the 4th estate and the 1st amendment for your cultural squablles.
also you are actually not on social media evidently. i don't even follow a ton of conservatives on twitter and i could see clips, line by line summaries and coverage of his entire speech and event. it was even trending! twitter is actually how i knew about it!
Re: (Score:2)
you are erecting an infrastructure of state control over media and speech and functionally dissolving the 4th estate and the 1st amendment for your cultural squablles.
All this, because I propose that we require the same rules of Section 230 platforms that we do of other common carriers?
So, what you mean to argue is that, these corporations have all waded hip-deep into the political muck, despite the fact that they're extraordinarily vulnerable to even slight changes in the political headwinds and the law?
Wo
Re: (Score:2)
Its kinda funny when the very topic this whole /. story is about is classifying ISP's as common carriers and you are opposing that.
Also social media platforms are not common carriers, they are just websites.
Again, at the end of the day you are proposing a 230 repeal. You can say you are not up and down but thats functionally what you are doing, you want the sites to be liable for the speech of the users on the site. this makes less free speech, not more. If you can't understand that please talk to a lawy
Re: (Score:2)
>Again, at the end of the day you are proposing a 230 repeal. You can say you are not up and down but thats functionally what you are doing
OK bud, whatever you say. Have a nice day!
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Interesting)
I just keep thinking about those two competing images of Berkeley.
Sixty years ago, this: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/wp... [berkeley.edu]
Now, this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6... [twimg.com] ...both images taken of protests on the same college campus, just decades apart. What a world.