Glen Greenwald: The Consortium Imposing the Growing Censorship Regime | Scheerpost

[JasperL]

Your argument above is funny for two reasons:

1) Twitter is in fact a public forum and retains protection from liability from contents posted to the forum... again: See Nick Sandman case.

Define "public forum." This place is a "public forum" but we all operate under rules dictated from above by the benevolent dictators who run the place, and those rules are WAY beyond "break the law". The mods ban speech every day or week that would be protected by the 1A if it was government doing the censoring.

So I don't know what you mean by "public forum" other than it's a place where the "public" can post freely, but under rules dictated by the owners of that site, which are clearly up to them.

Twitter is no more a "platform for Neo-Nazis" than I95 is a Neo-Nazi highway.

Try again. "In this case Twitter is a business, not a "public forum", and every 'social media' site has found out that being a platform for neo-Nazis or bigots or just assholes and trolls is bad business."

You are deliberately missing the point.

2) Deciding to ban people from Twitter for making anti-Progressive statements was also clearly bad for their business since they were hemorrhaging money before Elon even made a bid.

So what? I'm not conceding they banned people just for making "anti-Progressive" statements, but it's their business and they can run it as they see fit. If it goes under, boo hoo.

Where did I say anything like that? You'll need to show your work on that nonsense.

The problem, as you know if you just read the words of the 1A, is that the constitution only protects speech from government censorship. There is no such thing as a privately owned "public" forum. If it is privately owned, the owners can censor at will, and that's a GOOD THING.

..... took me a whole 2 seconds so I understand how you failed to check your own stupid claim...

Twitter's Tony Wang: 'We are the free speech wing of the free speech party'

Social networking site's general manager says it takes a neutral view on posted messages. By Josh Halliday

www.theguardian.com

Was the Babylon Bee Neo-Nazi? All you do with this stupid line of argumen is prove you have no clue exactly who and what was being banned from Twitter. Your idiot demagoguery only exposes how thin your mask is. This isn't about Neo-Nazis blasting illegal calls to violence since they'll still be banned... unlike ....

Twitter execs refused Israel’s request to remove Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei tweets

Twitter executives last month rebuffed a request from the Israeli government to remove tweets from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for the genocide of the Israeli people …

nypost.com

I guess your main problem is you don't like how Twitter was run. I don't really care about your opinion of that. My point is very simple - Twitter decides how its run, not you, not Big Brother, not moderation overseers appointed by Biden or a future President AOC or a future President DeSantis. The 1A protects Twitter's right to run their site as they see fit.

That it was politically neutral.

I certainly don't believe it was ever "politically neutral." That would mean it's politically neutral to fascism, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, etc..... And I don't know how it's possible to be perfectly politically neutral to "conservatism" or "liberalism" or whatever label you want to assign to the two party system in the U.S. and I don't actually care. Musk endorsed the GOP on his platform before the mid terms, so he took a "biased" stand in favor of the GOP. He said he'd support DeSantis if he runs in 2024. That is also not "politically neutral" and it's FINE. That is his his right under the 1A! If @Jack was politically biased and ran his company in a way that was politically biased against MAGAs, that's HIS constitutional right.

What you right wingers don't get is that the constitution in fact protects our right, and the right of private entities, to be politically biased. That's THE core protection, the promise of 'free speech', which is to advocate against politicians, parties, government, with which we disagree, and to advocate forcefully for something different, without fear of government reprisal.

Well sure, but as you have demonstrated, the Democrats and their apologists think everything that goes against them is a matter of national security. The Democrats have stage 2 authoritarianism where they believe themselves to be the only source of good and light and so everyone who doesn't support them are enemies of the state.

See how easily they convinced you that Twitter opening up their forums = Twitter is Neo-Nazis.

That's a series of straw men, but you do you....

 

[jmotivator]

Where is that in case law or the statutes? Or in the 1A? Cite your authority.

Harvard Law Review:

Section 230 as First Amendment Rule - Harvard Law Review

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has been lauded as “the most important law protecting internet speech” and called “perhaps the...

harvardlawreview.org

Their argument is the reason I am making my argument. Sect 230 should continue to protect public forums from liability because allowing liability would gravely impact free speech.

It's why the exception was included in the law in the first place and it is why defamation suits like the case of Nick Sandman focused on those who defamed him and not the platforms that they posted their defamatory articles to.

This is...censored speech.

It doesn't turn anything on its head. If they take an active role in managing the messaging on their forum then everything that is posted to their forum would be considered endorsed and actively promoted by them. I think Nick Sandman would have had a case against Twitter since twitter takes an active role in choosing what can and can't be said on their forum.
This is also why Twitter and Facebook have played an active role in recent years lobbying Congress to increase hate speech laws. They knew that they would evetually be found liable for something said on their platform since they took it on themselves to police legal speech on their platform. What they wanted was for their platform's woke policies became law, which would allow them to continue policing speech without threat of liability.

How is it "authoritarian" to like how DP is run...

I don't think anyone running DP would argue that they don't hold full, uncontested power over these forums, and that what they say goes at all times. When was the last time you remember forum moderation being put up for a vote?

But when you take full responsibility for the content of a platform you have created a work multiplier since you have made yourself liable for the content. It's somewhat manageable on a platform the size of DP, but there is a reason why Facebook and Twitter have had to rely on algorithms to do first pass moderation on the millions of posts an hour they receive.

Big platforms like Twitter and Facebook would be better served leaving the curation to the end user for their own experience by living them the tools to do it.

Why? Cite your authority.

I'm not losing my 'shit' about anything. Elon Musk bought ...

Well see, you can't help but defeat your own dumb arguments by claiming yo aren't losing your shit, and then in the same breath flog the same baseless demagoguery.

The only person you seem to be fooling is yourself.

Well, that's bullshit. Neo-Nazis are neo-Nazis. There are lots of people including YOU on DP who don't "share my politics" but AFAIK none of them are neo-Nazis. I'm using them as an example, that's it.

Are they? Again, who do you think you are fooling?

And, by the way, what Neo-Nazis has Elon allowed back on Twitter? Give me a list with citations showing why they were banned, and where he let them back on the forum...

But the... response.

Where did I say they couldn't? The point I am making is that they lose protections from liability if they actively curate membership and speech beyond what the law requires. Once they begin curating it can be assumed that what remains on the platform has been endorsed by the platform.

Sect. 230 was created to allow public forums to provide a space for speech without the liabilities of hosting speech. They can't curate the experience all they want, but they will be liable for what they leave on their site.

What I think is the ability of that person to chat about cake recipes is up to Twitter, not me, not you, not the state of Florida or Texas or a government bureaucrat in DC appointed by Biden.

And then you are left with a platform that bans a person who is sharing cake recipes while giving an open platform to a dictator who is literally running concentration camps, threatening to invade his neighbors and running the singularly most racist authoritarian state on the planet.... but hey, they protected the world from a possible Neo-Nazi's apple spice cake recipe!

Why do I have to answer that? I had nothing to do with those decisions.

It's funny that you find it so hard to answer...

 

[jmotivator]

Define "public forum." ...

A forum that is not private. How is this so hard for you to understand?

So I don't..clearly up to them.

Again, if they choose to moderate their messaging beyond what is required by law then they are liable for what is posted on their platform since the process of moderation is effectively a public endorsement of those messages you allow.

Try again. ... neo-Nazis or bigots or just assholes and trolls is bad business."

So you retract your blanket claim about Neo Nazis then? It's amazing how confidently dishonest you were before this.... so you can't name any Neo-Nazis, but made your whole argument about Neo-Nazis... until now. Now you have expanded it to pretty much everyone on Twitter.

Do you think that Progressive-Positive Twitter was any more devoid of such members? It was full of people throwing around terms like "Neo-Nazi" thinking it gave their stupid arguments gravitas.

You are deliberately missing the point.

How could I miss the point when you just changed your point? You tried the idiotic emotional appeal trying to argue that free speech is bad because "Neo-Nazis" and when asked to defend your stupid emotional argument you couldn't.

You are tryin to be an emotionally manipulative dishonest debater and you got caught. At this point continuing to debate with you is going on my list of charitable donations...

So what? ... goes under, boo hoo.

And it was bad for business, and they lost their business, and Musk fired the majority of the progressive poison working for Twitter.

If you want to talk "Good Business" how about cutting 75% of the overpaid staff and pair down the onsite benefit and having another 10% or so quit and Twitter traffic has increased without the site going offline. cutting staff by 85% while increasing services seems like good business!

The problem, as you know if you just read the words of the 1A, is that the constitution only protects speech from government censorship. There is no such thing as a privately owned "public" forum. If it is privately owned, the owners can censor at will, and that's a GOOD THING.

And the First Amendment only survives so long as the people fight for it. When you push a culture of privately silencing and sidelining speech you don't want you breed generations tat no longer respect others right to speak. That is how you end up with rampaging mobs on campuses shutting down venues because a conservative was hired to speak.

Once that becomes the norm, nobody will care if the police step in to shut down speech, it just saves them the hassle of doing it themselves.

I guess your main ...site as they see fit.

Well, yes and no. 1A allows Twitter to operate however they want but Sec. 230 determines what liabilities Twitter carries while engaging in 1A activities. You and I are protected by 1A, but we can also be held liable for what we say. Sec. 230 allows forums to avoid such liability so long as they meet certain criteria.

I certainly don't believe it was ever "politically neutral." That would mean it's politically neutral to fascism, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, etc.....

Like the Ayatollah, Xi Jinping, Hugo Chavez... they were big on all the fascists and and anti-Semites that shared their politics.

And ... right.

Well, maybe all of the Progressive blue checks fleeing Twitter will find a home over on Mastodon among the furries and zoophiles...

And, again, Twitter was hemorrhaging money under Jack Dorsey, and that only accelerated under his successor who turned the political bias of Twitter up to 11.

What you right wingers don't get ... reprisal.

It doesn't protect us from liability for what we say, but the law does protect platforms from liability for what is said on their platform.

Also, who's a right winger? Is letting people I don't like have the ability to speak "right wing" now?

That's a series of straw men, but you do you....

It's not strawmen at all. We are talking about a party that made parents objecting to school teaching materials a threat to national security...

 

[JasperL]

Harvard Law Review:

Section 230 as First Amendment Rule - Harvard Law Review

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has been lauded as “the most important law protecting internet speech” and called “perhaps the...

harvardlawreview.org

I have no idea what you think in that treatise contradicts anything I've said. What it appears to argue is that 230 shouldn't even be necessary, because to impose intermediary liability on websites would chill protected speech. I agree, and that is the premise behind 230.

What you're arguing is some legal, or possibly ethical or argument in principle, obligation to be "neutral" to political viewpoints in order to obtain protection from liability. That's simply false. 230 doesn't require 'neutrality' in any way, and the "Note" you cited doesn't make that argument.

It doesn't turn anything on its head. If they take an active role in managing the messaging on their forum then everything that is posted to their forum would be considered endorsed and actively promoted by them.

That is just false, and you can point to nothing to support that conclusion.

I think Nick Sandman would have had a case against Twitter since twitter takes an active role in choosing what can and can't be said on their forum.

You "think" that based on what? Not the 'Note' you cited above, not 230, not any court case I've ever seen. The Note argues compellingly for the opposite view - that for Twitter to evaluate the claim about Sandman either cannot be done, or if it was required by 230 or 1A principles would chill speech.

That's what you don't get - the regime you favor is for more censorship, not less. It's to chill speech. Imagine if Amazon was held liable for negative reviews about products that are false, defamatory. The only rational response by Amazon and about 100,000 other websites is to ban negative reviews altogether, since it's impossible for Amazon to judge whether e.g. my claim that the charger I bought is Chinese junk that ruined by cell phone the first time I hooked it up is true or false.

This is also why Twitter and Facebook have played an active role in recent years lobbying Congress to increase hate speech laws. They knew that they would evetually be found liable for something said on their platform since they took it on themselves to police legal speech on their platform.

I don't even know what you're talking about. Every website can "police" speech without threat of liability. 230 makes that protection explicit and your "Note" argues it should be enshrined by the courts if/when 230 is repealed.

when you take full responsibility for the content of a platform you have created a work multiplier since you have made yourself liable for the content.

The bolded is just false. You don't understand the law - 230 - or the argument in your own cite. It's unbelievable how far off you are - you are literally arguing the OPPOSITE of what the law says and what your own source says.

If I say, "@UserBOB" is a convicted child molesting pedophile, and the mods don't catch that for a week or two or even if they see it and don't take it down, DP is not liable for that (presumably) defamatory content. I am liable - I created it. They are not liable for hosting it.

Big platforms like Twitter and Facebook would be better served leaving the curation to the end user for their own experience by living them the tools to do it.

OK, but that's your opinion, and nobody needs to care about your opinion.

Well see, you can't help but defeat your own dumb arguments by claiming yo aren't losing your shit, and then in the same breath flog the same baseless demagoguery.

The only person you seem to be fooling is yourself.

If you want to identify my 'baseless demagoguery' that would help the discussion along....

Are they? Again, who do you think you are fooling?

And, by the way, what Neo-Nazis has Elon allowed back on Twitter? Give me a list with citations showing why they were banned, and where he let them back on the forum...

The point is if he continues to ban them, then he's actively managing the content of his forum, and is, according to you, therefore liable for any defamatory content.

Your position is the untenable one that allowing openly Jew-hating neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers is the 'price' for protection against liability for third party content. You. Are. Wrong. It's just that simple.

 

[JasperL]

A forum that is not private. How is this so hard for you to understand?

Well, name a public forum. It's not Twitter or Facebook or Instagram - those are privately owned platforms that allow the public to post on them, for free, if they abide by rules set by the owners.

Again, if they choose to moderate their messaging beyond what is required by law then they are liable for what is posted on their platform since the process of moderation is effectively a public endorsement of those messages you allow.

False.

So you retract your blanket claim about Neo Nazis then? It's amazing how confidently dishonest you were before this.... so you can't name any Neo-Nazis, but made your whole argument about Neo-Nazis... until now. Now you have expanded it to pretty much everyone on Twitter.

Do you think that Progressive-Positive Twitter was any more devoid of such members? It was full of people throwing around terms like "Neo-Nazi" thinking it gave their stupid arguments gravitas.

How could I miss the point when you just changed your point? You tried the idiotic emotional appeal trying to argue that free speech is bad because "Neo-Nazis" and when asked to defend your stupid emotional argument you couldn't.

My argument is "free speech" includes the right to free association, and that means if the Holocaust Museum doesn't want to host neo-Nazi speech, the 1A allows them to ban that otherwise protected speech.

Should government COMPEL this place or any other to host speech of any kind it finds offensive? Should it compel DP to host speech with which the owners simply disagree? Should government condition liability protection on their "neutrality" to anti-Semitic viewpoints.

You are tryin to be an emotionally manipulative dishonest debater and you got caught. At this point continuing to debate with you is going on my list of charitable donations...

I don't really care what you think of my arguments because you are clearly ignorant of the law and the principle behind that law, which is why you posted a "Note" and either didn't read it or didn't understand the argument made in it.

And it was bad for business, and they lost their business, and Musk fired the majority of the progressive poison working for Twitter.

If you want to talk "Good Business" how about cutting 75% of the overpaid staff and pair down the onsite benefit and having another 10% or so quit and Twitter traffic has increased without the site going offline. cutting staff by 85% while increasing services seems like good business!

OK, I guess.

And the First Amendment only survives so long as the people fight for it. When you push a culture of privately silencing and sidelining speech you don't want you breed generations tat no longer respect others right to speak. That is how you end up with rampaging mobs on campuses shutting down venues because a conservative was hired to speak.

Once that becomes the norm, nobody will care if the police step in to shut down speech, it just saves them the hassle of doing it themselves.

Free speech includes the right to protest, even when you or I disagree with what the protesters do or say.

What you seem to believe the 1A protects is the 'right' to say anything, anywhere, without negative consequences.

What's also...interesting... is it's the right wing putting in place anti-"woke", and anti-CRT policies for public schools and the like. Those are actual infringements on the 'right' to free speech and you're whining that college students protested, which is of course an exercise in free speech, however misguided you believe them to be.

Well, yes and no. 1A allows Twitter to operate however they want but Sec. 230 determines what liabilities Twitter carries while engaging in 1A activities. You and I are protected by 1A, but we can also be held liable for what we say. Sec. 230 allows forums to avoid such liability so long as they meet certain criteria.

Which criteria? Quote the statute.

I didn't address the rest because I've either already addressed it or it's more of you proving you have no understanding of 230 or the principles behind it. Just for example, I know you will not cite the statute for 230 for the supposed "criteria" they have to meet to avoid liability. That criteria that you've interpreted to mean some notion of neutrality is not there and should not be there.

 

[jmotivator]

I have no idea what you think in that treatise contradicts anything I've said. What it appears to argue is that 230 shouldn't even be necessary, because to impose intermediary liability on websites would chill protected speech. I agree, and that is the premise behind 230.

OK, let's take a break for a minute to make sure we aren't speaking past one another... because it appears we are.

It seems that you are making two diametrically opposing arguments.

On the one hand you say that you want social media sites to be heavily moderated, while on the other you argue that liability would chill protected speech.

It seems you like our protected speech served chilled, anyway.

And while it is true that Sec 230 is written to grant immunity to social media who make "good faith" attempts to moderate their platforms for access to objectionable materials, it is arguable is moderation for purely political objectives while claiming to be non-political is moderation in good faith. While you and I agree that Section 230 is a valuable law, I argue that these social media outlets have not been operating in good faith.

I support Elon Musk's efforts to make Twitter an open platform where all points of view can be stated and challenged in the light of day. The cure for bad speech is good speech, not censorship. When and where I determine a member is beyond saving I put them on ignore because it's better that they believe I'm giving them a platform tan it is to drive them underground.

We've seen the progressive movement arguing that there is nothing wrong with Twitter for years, and now that the platform is trying to be more open they want it shut down. Why?

Worse yet, for a few years now there is a growing sentiment on the left and progressives that Twitter isn't just essential to free speech, but it should be nationalized.

I don't think you agree with them, but contrary to your accusation earlier, it's not my side looking to nationalize social media.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The cure for bad speech is good speech, not censorship. When and where I determine a member is beyond saving I put them on ignore because......

LOL.....you are aware that "ignoring" them is.....wait for it..... self censorship.

 

[JasperL]

OK, let's take a break for a minute to make sure we aren't speaking past one another... because it appears we are.

It seems that you are making two diametrically opposing arguments.

On the one hand you say that you want social media sites to be heavily moderated, while on the other you argue that liability would chill protected speech.

No, I am indifferent to how "heavily moderated" Site X or Y or ZZZ. It's not my call. If I don't like their "moderation" I can choose to not use that platform. I don't like how Truth Social is "moderated" so I have never visited that site.

And of course "liability" chills speech. Read your own link for goodness sake. I won't repeat the argument in the legal note YOU posted.

It seems you like our protected speech served chilled, anyway.

And while it is true that Sec 230 is written to grant immunity to social media who make "good faith" attempts to moderate their platforms for access to objectionable materials, it is arguable is moderation for purely political objectives while claiming to be non-political is moderation in good faith. While you and I agree that Section 230 is a valuable law, I argue that these social media outlets have not been operating in good faith.

Nothing in 230 - absolutely nothing - not a word, clause, etc. requires anything like "non-political" or "neutral" or similar terms moderation. And I use neo-Nazis because they are nothing more than a group promoting a "political opinion" and if a site is required to be neutral to political viewpoints, they must platform neo-Nazis, outright fascists, white supremacists and every other fringe political view, no matter how objectionable to you, me, or the site's ownership.

And the key question is who decides if Twitter or Truth Social or Hannity's forum is moderating in "good faith?" What's the standard? What's the recourse/penalty for not operating in "good faith" for a site that you pay nothing to use?

You've repeatedly argued that if they moderate, 'control the narrative' in some way (which every site does, FWIW), and are biased against some group, or biased for some other group, the site loses liability protection. I'm not sure how that argument fits into this new standard of "good faith" that I don't think you can define in the law or court cases or the Constitution. Bottom line is DP/Twitter/FB et al. do not have to operate in "good faith." They can be as arbitrary and capricious as they want and still be protected by 230, and very likely the 1A. Musk can arbitrarily ban anyone who says the slightest negative thing about Tesla autos, or makes fun of his hair, and that's FINE.

I support Elon Musk's efforts to make Twitter an open platform where all points of view can be stated and challenged in the light of day. The cure for bad speech is good speech, not censorship. When and where I determine a member is beyond saving I put them on ignore because it's better that they believe I'm giving them a platform tan it is to drive them underground.

I'm indifferent to your support of Musk, but he has not, to my knowledge, ever said he'll welcome "all" points of view. Will he welcome anti-Semites and neo-Nazis and outright racists, trolls, flame throwers? It changes daily so who knows? Last time I checked in, he said he wouldn't 'ban' posts/Tweets or users but so restrict them that you have to know the Tweet exists and actively search for that Tweet. Well, for all practical purposes that's censorship and not a big change, other than on the margins. But whatever. It's his playground now, and his rules.

We've seen the progressive movement arguing that there is nothing wrong with Twitter for years, and now that the platform is trying to be more open they want it shut down. Why?

I don't speak for "progressives" or "they" or "them"- just myself. So whether or not an undefined "they" want "it" shut down is of zero interest to me. Take it up with "them" if you want.

 

[JasperL]

Worse yet, for a few years now there is a growing sentiment on the left and progressives that Twitter isn't just essential to free speech, but it should be nationalized.

I actually do agree with them, at least in principle. IF Twitter is a "public square" (and that is at the core your entire argument on this thread) then it needs to be nationalized, and that made explicit. Big Government will control moderation, who can be banned, for what, then rights of appeal, etc. Presumably the 1A will apply, and only speech that can be censored by government is censored on this "public square." That is a legitimate 'solution' to the problem as I see it, and it's an honest one, that doesn't infringe on anyone's right to free speech or free association, and it serves the public interest in providing a platform for ANY views, no matter how offensive you or me might find them.

The alternative is what I want no part of, which is compelled speech by some form or fashion by "neutrality" standards or similar. That's what the MAGAs did in Texas and Florida. If the 1A means ANYTHING, IMO, it means any private site can kick any member of government, any political figure, off their site for any reason. Put another way - What Would Putin Do with social media? What would Xi do? The Ayatollah? Compel social media to carry their views! That's not freedom - THAT is authoritarianism. A free people can oppose the government, and that would include refusing to platform the views of government officials they oppose, at will, without fear of reprisal from that government.

Whatever you think of Trump, there will be if he is not a truly legitimate threat to our government, our way of life, our constitution, and there is no world in which I want that same government given the right to compel Twitter or DP or my personal blog to carry that person's message. If we cannot be "biased" against views we believe are a genuine threat to our safety, way of life, etc. then what's the point of the 1A?

 

[jmotivator]

LOL.....you are aware that "ignoring" them is.....wait for it..... self censorship.

No, self censorship would be censoring my own posts.

Deciding not to read someone else's posts anymore is me being choosy in how I spend my time, which is different than not liking a person on the forum and deciding the preferred solution is that they are thrown off the site all together.

 

[JasperL]

No, self censorship would be censoring my own posts.

Deciding not to read someone else's posts anymore is me being choosy in how I spend my time, which is different than not liking a person on the forum and deciding the preferred solution is that they are thrown off the site all together.

The latter is what the mods do on a very regular basis to keep this place civil, as THEY define that in their sole prerogative. There's a thread in the basement that tracks the bans, and it's a long list. It's in fact fine to do that, and no one needs to break any law to get banned, and DP owners/mods are still, contrary to your claims, protected by 230 against liability for what any of us post on this forum.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No, self censorship would be censoring my own posts.

Deciding not to read someone else's posts anymore is me being choosy in how I spend my time, which is different than not liking a person on the forum and deciding the preferred solution is that they are thrown off the site all together.

You censoring the posts of others is same act. Quit lying to yourself.

 

[Doug64]

LMAO... The GOVERNMENT can't prohibit sex offenders from using social media... Packingham v. North Carolina said NOTHING about the right of a private company banning someone.. good lord...

No, it didn't. But it did declare the internet vital for exercising your 1st Amendment rights. From the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy:

A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 796 (1989) . Even in the modern era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply to learn and inquire.


While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” in general, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 868 (1997) , and social media in particular.

True, this case centered on a government restriction, but what about when it is private organizations exercising what is essentially monopoly control to suppress dissemination of political views they disagree with? Where is the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” then? The general understanding that the State shouldn't interfere too much in business affairs doesn't extend to monopoly situations.

Sec. 230 doesn't require a "public forum" and very explicitly gives owners of places that accept comments from the public the right to moderate as they see fit.

I would argue that 230 gives owners the right to moderate as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with the state of affairs that 230 was designed to promote--"a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."

 

[Dans La Lune]

This just came out on Scheerpost today, quite timely in my view. There's been a lot of criticism of Scheerpost in this forum, so to try to do an end run around that, I thought it'd be better of establishing the credentials of the author of the article I'll be quoting instead. For those unfamiliar with Glen Greenwald, a little background courtesy of Wikipedia:

**
Greenwald started contributing to Salon in 2007, and to The Guardian in 2012. In June 2013, while at The Guardian, he began publishing a series of reports detailing previously unknown information about American and British global surveillance programs based on classified documents provided by Edward Snowden. His work contributed to The Guardian's 2014 Pulitzer Prize win, and he won the 2013 George Polk Award along with three other reporters, including Laura Poitras.
**

Source:

Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Alright, with his credentials established, on to the introduction to his article:

**
The rapid escalation of online censorship, and increasingly offline censorship, cannot be overstated. The silencing tactic that has most commonly provoked attention and debate is the banning of particular posts or individuals by specific social media platforms. But the censorship regime that has been developed, and which is now rapidly escalating, extends far beyond those relatively limited punishments.

The Consortium of State and Corporate Power

There has been some reporting — by me and others — on the new and utterly fraudulent “disinformation” industry. This newly minted, self-proclaimed expertise, grounded in little more than crude political ideology, claims the right to officially decree what is “true” and “false” for purposes of, among other things, justifying state and corporate censorship of what its “experts” decree to be “disinformation.” The industry is funded by a consortium of a small handful of neoliberal billionaires (George Soros and Pierre Omidyar) along with U.S., British and EU intelligence agencies. These government-and-billionaire-funded “anti-disinformation” groups often masquerade under benign-sounding names: The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab, Bellingcat, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. They are designed to cast the appearance of apolitical scholarship, but their only real purpose is to provide a justifying framework to stigmatize, repress and censor any thoughts, views and ideas that dissent from neoliberal establishment orthodoxy. It exists, in other words, to make censorship and other forms of repression appear scientific rather than ideological.

That these groups are funded by the West’s security state, Big Tech, and other assorted politically active billionaires is not speculation or some fevered conspiracy theory. For various legal reasons, they are required to disclose their funders, and these facts about who finances them are therefore based on their own public admissions. So often the financing is funneled through well-established front groups for CIA, the State Department and the U.S. National Security State, such as “National Endowment for Democracy.”
**

Full article:

The Consortium Imposing the Growing Censorship Regime

Glenn Greenwald is launching a new live, one-hour, prime-time news broadcast. Armed with cable-sized budgets, it will be part of a network that Russell Brand has already debuted.

scheerpost.com

AHAHA Glenn Greenwald, the biggest turncoat Tucker Carlson bootlicker on the ****ing planet.

 

[BlueTex]

No, it didn't. But it did declare the internet vital for exercising your 1st Amendment rights. From the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy:

Just like newspapers are vital for a free press... Still says nothing about forcing a newspaper to publish information they don't agree with...

True, this case centered on a government restriction, but what about when it is private organizations exercising what is essentially monopoly control to suppress dissemination of political views they disagree with? Where is the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” then? The general understanding that the State shouldn't interfere too much in business affairs doesn't extend to monopoly situations.

Twitter is far from a monopoly... Hell, twitter only has around 77 million users in the US and that include organizations, companies, etc.

I would argue that 230 gives owners the right to moderate as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with the state of affairs that 230 was designed to promote--"a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."

Section 230 does not strip any interactive computer service of their first amendment right to association.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Glenn Greenwald...



But this thread does illuminate Glenn's value to the right-wing. As with Dave Rubin, Jimmy Dore, Tim Pool, Tulsi Gabbard, etc,

 

[JasperL]

No, it didn't. But it did declare the internet vital for exercising your 1st Amendment rights. From the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy:

Yes, but the "internet" isn't Twitter. Twitter is a private business, with a board whose duty is to maximize profits for shareholders. That's not a "public" forum. It's not government owned property.

True, this case centered on a government restriction, but what about when it is private organizations exercising what is essentially monopoly control to suppress dissemination of political views they disagree with? Where is the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” then? The general understanding that the State shouldn't interfere too much in business affairs doesn't extend to monopoly situations.

There's a possible anti-trust argument, I guess, but the problem is how you define "monopoly" in this case. Twitter certainly isn't the only place where the public can post and express their views. We are doing it on a forum other than Twitter, and Truth Social is an alternative. Reddit has thousands of different forums, many of them political, and moderated independently, so if you want a pro-MAGA forum, there's one for you. There are many more alternatives, and they are growing, just a search away.

I would argue that 230 gives owners the right to moderate as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with the state of affairs that 230 was designed to promote--"a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."

That part of 230 isn't in the law, and what it's referring to is the "internet" writ large, not Forum X, or Forum Y. It's clear you can if you're a MAGA find a platform to discuss your views. Hell, Twitter is one of them, as is Facebook, but you do have to abide by their rules, and each site makes their rules, and they are there to MAKE MONEY FOR SHAREHOLDERS, not promote anything. But if they want to be liberal, or conservative, and decide platforming MAGAs or ANTIFA or whoever is bad for business or just runs against their values, they have the FREEDOM to do that. That is the promise of the 1A, what makes a free society. It's not when government says, "Hey, you must carry the views the government tells you to carry or else" which is what Florida and Texas tried and were shot down.

And you're moving goal posts here. If the argument is Twitter is so big and dominant that it needs to be regulated like a monopoly, or effectively nationalized with a board appointed by Biden and approved by the Senate to make moderation decisions, with bureaucrats sitting over their shoulders all day making sure they're doing it as the government wants, with 1A protections as the only allowable standard, that's one argument. But that will apply to only a handful of sites, and I don't know how Congress will define them, or can define them. The rest have the 1A right to associate with whom they please, and that means they can moderate as they see fit, period. Here's the relevant part of 230:

"(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;"

The law makes it explicit - these places are NOT bound by the 1A (which clearly applies only to censoring decisions by the government), which means if a Catholic website doesn't want to hear from pro-choice people, they can ban them. Your favorite fishing blog can kick off PETA members complaining about how fishing is cruel, no gun forum has to host anti-gun members, or assholes, or those just being a PITA who don't contribute to the discussion, etc. Those forums exist to discuss Catholicism or guns or fishing, not to provide an open public debate forum for the debate of abortion, ethics of fishing, etc.

I don't really think ANYONE wants to change that. Nor should they. If I or you believe progressives or MAGAs are a threat to our way of life, dangerous for the future of this country, a threat to our well being, safety, security, whatever, why should I in a free country have to platform those views on MY forum?

 

[nvflash]

This just came out on Scheerpost today, quite timely in my view. There's been a lot of criticism of Scheerpost in this forum, so to try to do an end run around that, I thought it'd be better of establishing the credentials of the author of the article I'll be quoting instead. For those unfamiliar with Glen Greenwald, a little background courtesy of Wikipedia:

**
Greenwald started contributing to Salon in 2007, and to The Guardian in 2012. In June 2013, while at The Guardian, he began publishing a series of reports detailing previously unknown information about American and British global surveillance programs based on classified documents provided by Edward Snowden. His work contributed to The Guardian's 2014 Pulitzer Prize win, and he won the 2013 George Polk Award along with three other reporters, including Laura Poitras.
**

Source:

Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Alright, with his credentials established, on to the introduction to his article:

**
The rapid escalation of online censorship, and increasingly offline censorship, cannot be overstated. The silencing tactic that has most commonly provoked attention and debate is the banning of particular posts or individuals by specific social media platforms. But the censorship regime that has been developed, and which is now rapidly escalating, extends far beyond those relatively limited punishments.

The Consortium of State and Corporate Power

There has been some reporting — by me and others — on the new and utterly fraudulent “disinformation” industry. This newly minted, self-proclaimed expertise, grounded in little more than crude political ideology, claims the right to officially decree what is “true” and “false” for purposes of, among other things, justifying state and corporate censorship of what its “experts” decree to be “disinformation.” The industry is funded by a consortium of a small handful of neoliberal billionaires (George Soros and Pierre Omidyar) along with U.S., British and EU intelligence agencies. These government-and-billionaire-funded “anti-disinformation” groups often masquerade under benign-sounding names: The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab, Bellingcat, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. They are designed to cast the appearance of apolitical scholarship, but their only real purpose is to provide a justifying framework to stigmatize, repress and censor any thoughts, views and ideas that dissent from neoliberal establishment orthodoxy. It exists, in other words, to make censorship and other forms of repression appear scientific rather than ideological.

That these groups are funded by the West’s security state, Big Tech, and other assorted politically active billionaires is not speculation or some fevered conspiracy theory. For various legal reasons, they are required to disclose their funders, and these facts about who finances them are therefore based on their own public admissions. So often the financing is funneled through well-established front groups for CIA, the State Department and the U.S. National Security State, such as “National Endowment for Democracy.”
**

Full article:

The Consortium Imposing the Growing Censorship Regime

Glenn Greenwald is launching a new live, one-hour, prime-time news broadcast. Armed with cable-sized budgets, it will be part of a network that Russell Brand has already debuted.

scheerpost.com

WOW, that was a long read, I felt as if I were reading a book.

Then came the pitch, to a "new" news program on Rumble, which I will be interested to watch a few times to see if it can be a source of actual unbiased news reporting and journalistic investigation.

Thanks.

 

[Doug64]

Just like newspapers are vital for a free press... Still says nothing about forcing a newspaper to publish information they don't agree with...

Sure, but not even the largest newspapers have all that large a following these days.

Twitter is far from a monopoly... Hell, twitter only has around 77 million users in the US and that include organizations, companies, etc.

And how many users do its competitors have?

Yes, but the "internet" isn't Twitter. Twitter is a private business, with a board whose duty is to maximize profits for shareholders. That's not a "public" forum. It's not government owned property.

None of "the internet" referred to in the opinion are government owned property. That doesn't change how the Supreme Court has described it.

There's a possible anti-trust argument, I guess, but the problem is how you define "monopoly" in this case. Twitter certainly isn't the only place where the public can post and express their views. We are doing it on a forum other than Twitter, and Truth Social is an alternative. Reddit has thousands of different forums, many of them political, and moderated independently, so if you want a pro-MAGA forum, there's one for you. There are many more alternatives, and they are growing, just a search away.

Sure, if you want small forums you can find them, so long as they aren't Conservative or strong supporters of free speech and grow large enough to pose a possible threat to Liberal Orthodoxy, at which point Apple (you know, the company actively helping the CCP crush protests in China?) and Google deny access to their stores.

That part of 230 isn't in the law, and what it's referring to is the "internet" writ large, not Forum X, or Forum Y.

Actually, it is in the law, 47 U.S. Code § 230 (a) (3). It's part of the findings, laying out why the law exists. And yes, it's referring to "the internet" writ large, but the whole point of monopolies is that they dominate industries. And as an easy showing of the dominance of Twitter and Facebook, just which two sites do you find news and opinion sites include easy links to for sharing their articles and columns? Twitter and Facebook, over and over.

 

[JasperL]

None of "the internet" referred to in the opinion are government owned property. That doesn't change how the Supreme Court has described it.

And None of the "internet" referred to in the opinion implies ONE SITE. As people have pointed out, the 1A as it applies to the privately owned press allows any given press entity to be as biased, arbitrary, as they want. So the 1A doesn't demand that my local paper be "neutral" or "respect free speech" in what comments they run, or what editorials they run. They protect ALL such entities to be as hostile to a given political viewpoint as they want. THAT IS THE POINT OF PRESS FREEDOM. So if the Red Commie Daily wants to run only pro-commie columns, they CAN DO THAT.

Sure, if you want small forums you can find them, so long as they aren't Conservative or strong supporters of free speech and grow large enough to pose a possible threat to Liberal Orthodoxy, at which point Apple (you know, the company actively helping the CCP crush protests in China?) and Google deny access to their stores.

You can't even keep your point consistent. You're conflating "forums" with Apps, and then using a bunch of right wing talking points to make that argument which is at the core an anti-trust argument, not a 1A argument. It would help if you picked one argument and stuck with it. You will lose with the 1A argument. It's clear that the 1A protects our right to association, which means if this place, or Twitter, or Reddit, or Facebook wants to boot every liberal/progressive, or every MAGA, they have a constitutionally protected RIGHT to do that.

Actually, it is in the law, 47 U.S. Code § 230 (a) (3). It's part of the findings, laying out why the law exists. And yes, it's referring to "the internet" writ large, but the whole point of monopolies is that they dominate industries. And as an easy showing of the dominance of Twitter and Facebook, just which two sites do you find news and opinion sites include easy links to for sharing their articles and columns? Twitter and Facebook, over and over.

OK, but the law is clear - 230 very explicitly allows providers/sites to moderate as they see fit, and they are not bound by the 1A.

So you're making an anti-trust argument, not a 1A argument. What you're arguing but won't say is of course you don't want gun forums compelled to carry anti-gun speech. You don't want religious forums to carry anti-religion trolls. Etc. You are here so presumably you're fine with the DP moderators exercising (benevolent) dictatorial control over posts and members, with you and me having NO right to challenge their decisions. The 1A protects their RIGHT to do that. This is very clear, and it's a good thing.

What you want is for Congress to declare a few sites too big to censor, and have Big Government tell them how to run their places, so effectively nationalize them. I'm actually fine with that. Put shareholders on notice - this place isn't run for YOUR benefit but how Biden's Federal Board of Internet Moderation wants it run. I'm serious - that's a good answer.

 

[Doug64]

which is at the core an anti-trust argument, not a 1A argument.

It is an antitrust argument based on the 1st Amendment.

OK, but the law is clear - 230 very explicitly allows providers/sites to moderate as they see fit, and they are not bound by the 1A.

Here's an interesting question for any judge interpreting this law--or any other law, for that matter. Should the text of the law be interpreted in a way that actually undercuts the expressed purpose of the law? In this case, should "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" be interpreted in a way that interferes with, rather than promotes, "the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media"?

 

[Indydave]

Has there ever been time in the history of mankind when it has been easier to reach millions of people around the world?

absolutely.....technology has out paced man's ability to use it without abusing it.....it has given voice to everyone and as we all know everyone is the product of his raising with his own prejudices and weird thoughts...it has made every person their own media outlet....it's akin to allowing a juvenile the ability to get a gun......or a madman......or a religious fanatic....in today's world if we disagree with someone it is now ok to just call them a liar or a cheat or a criminal......we in America being the freest of the free and quick to scream fault when we get our precious little feelings hurt are very likely in for a rude shock to this freedom.......our insistence on our 'freedoms' to insult, to belittle, to accuse, to demand, to threaten could ultimately lead to our losing all our freedoms.......both political parties have become the protectors of the extremes within our parties and lifestyles.......the adults have given over to the bratty immature previously throughout our history, insufferable loud mouth bullies.....

 

[Deuce]

Sure, but not even the largest newspapers have all that large a following these days.

Relevance?

And how many users do its competitors have?

Relevance?

None of "the internet" referred to in the opinion are government owned property. That doesn't change how the Supreme Court has described it.


Sure, if you want small forums you can find them, so long as they aren't Conservative or strong supporters of free speech and grow large enough to pose a possible threat to Liberal Orthodoxy, at which point Apple (you know, the company actively helping the CCP crush protests in China?) and Google deny access to their stores.

Made up victim complex garbage.

Actually, it is in the law, 47 U.S. Code § 230 (a) (3). It's part of the findings, laying out why the law exists. And yes, it's referring to "the internet" writ large, but the whole point of monopolies is that they dominate industries. And as an easy showing of the dominance of Twitter and Facebook, just which two sites do you find news and opinion sites include easy links to for sharing their articles and columns? Twitter and Facebook, over and over.

Your real motivation here is just wanting to attack those you perceive as enemies.

 

[Doug64]

Relevance?

Market share.

Relevance?

Market share.

Made up victim complex garbage.

Have you been following the reporting on the Twitter efforts to suppress Conservative voices?

Your real motivation here is just wanting to attack those you perceive as enemies.

I don’t see what relevance your claim of mind reading has to the truth of my post.

 

[Deuce]

Market share.


Market share.


Have you been following the reporting on the Twitter efforts to suppress Conservative voices?


I don’t see what relevance your claim of mind reading has to the truth of my post.

Not suppress "conservative voices." The text release disproves this narrative, why do you repeat it?