I'm not clear if it means the social media platforms can't delete anything, or just nothing political. Appears to be headed to the USSC .. A federal court clears the way for a Texas social media law. Federal Court rules Big Tech has no 'freewheeling First Amendment right to censor'
The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,..” I haven’t read the opinion, but how has Congress made any such law?Private companies are regulating what may be said on their platforms. I just don’t see the applicability of the First Amendment.
GC has established 'board language rules' to maintain order and decorum. It does seem private online digital media companies can establish their own 'rules of use' and enforce those 'rules' as they see fit. Edit: DeSantis has banned many books from Public schools. Many libraries censor select books. Censorship of dialog or images is pervasive by companies interacting with the public at large. Digital media should clearly communicate their editorial standards/rules and enforcement guidelines, Done.
LOL, private companies my ass. You guys honestly believe our govt isn't constantly crafting their own narrative through all these social media companies? Bless your hearts.
Interesting argument. You are saying that these companies are now actually public and have become so without consent of the stockholders of the companies or any legal determination of violation of anti-trust laws? If that were the case, it would seem to be a likely to be a violation of the 4th amendment’s barring of unreasonable seizures, right? And so in what way does it fix any of this to simply compel the publication of hate speech?
Is censoring a form of editing? Or is this "censoring" actually suppression of information? If censoring is a form of editing then these so called social media "platforms" aren't really "platforms". Which opens up a whole set of issues for social media. If this "censoring" is actually suppression of information then there are problems for these social media platforms as well. Regardless of where one stands politically there needs to be some clear and transparent rules in place for social media platforms.
The clear and transparent rules are specified in each platform's Terms of Service. These are free enterprises.
It is not “editing” since they are not actually changing posts (as Too Hot Mods occasionally do here). My understanding is they resorted to “warning labels” to flag posts deemed bs. You could call this tactic suppression of information. The dilemma is that these are private enterprises owned by shareholders, these are for-profit private enterprise. They are not in fact a “public square” as some of these conservative activist judges have wanted to reframe it. I don’t see a compelling argument that these businesses should be forced to host speech which is harmful or even an existential threat to their long term business. In a lot of cases they would be asked to host frauds and liars and treat their “information” as equal to good or reliable information. Of course the snake oil salesman would love this arrangement! Viral lies to da moon! It should be up to each platform to set their standards, just as it’s up to Too Hot to set its own standards or Truth Social or 8chan to set theirs. The marketplace will act accordingly.
People should be able to stand on the corner and say what they want to passers by in the park. If these media platforms are seen as "parks or street corners" then there shouldn't be any restrictions (other than not yelling fire in a theater etc.) But these are also private businesses so they should be able to make rules as they see fit. Interesting issue.
Yeah, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean either. You think the government actually runs the social media platforms? Or do you think that govt agencies have coordinated messages that they post under anonymous names in order to shape public conversation? Did Trump have one message and Biden another? I'd be curious your answers here.
Infowars guy apparently made 8 or 9 figures selling supplements and apocalyptic goods online. Almost all these viral manipulators have an agenda. For some it may just be they get a drug-like high from trolling and “going viral” online even if they are spreading bs. For others, like Jones, it can be big $$$ or lead to media opportunities. Should YouTube be compelled to host his videos about Sandy Hook children to see if he can go for 10 figures? The thought anyone would even think to say yes disgusts me.
Public park or street corner then. Are these platforms public is the main question to answer. If they are run by the government then we have gov. control of media which isn't a great idea either.
The law of unintended consequences will be exercised if this holds. Companies like Twitter will respond to protect company and shareholder interests. They may block all Texas users or split off a child Twitter community for only Texas users which will be exempt from the 50+ million user requirements. Who loses? Everybody.
