Texas social media censorship bill signed into law

[BlueTex]

Perhaps you should Google it to find the appropriate document before LOLing a factual statement.

LOL... Do "supplemental STATEMENTS" carry any legal weight in court?

 

[GummyVitamins]

LOL... Do "supplemental STATEMENTS" carry any legal weight in court?

I have no idea what you're saying or why you're saying it. And, I have a feeling you don't either.

 

[ClaraD]

If they are shaping the content on their site, then they are publishing.
The exemptions should be for things that are illegal-- of which making threats and so forth are and can be.
If they want the benefits of the law.

The FEC ruled that Twitter is a publisher for purposes of its decision in ruling that its banning of the H Biden stories last year should not be considered a campaign contribution.
So there we go.

there is no Constitutional right to tell a private entity what they can allow or not allow in their domain. In fact, since they are considered press, you cannot force them to publish anything or not publish....if you don't like it, there are other forums you can join that are more to your leanings....

 

[ClaraD]

No. What they said was that Twitter acts as the "press" (ie as a publisher) and can restrict what they find fit to print much like the NY TIMES can.
They further opined Congress is the proper venue to seek relief, not the FEC.

you realize that the Supreme Court has determined many times that the press cannot be forced to publish content right?

 

[tanj]

That says Congress...aka the government...it doesn't say that Facebook shall make no law...in fact, that suggests that what Texas just did is illegal.

I guess the US Supreme Court will have to rule on this to determine if these restrictions on social media companies are reasonable enough.
it is interesting to watch how hard some will defend these companies right to discriminate against whomever they want whenever and however they want when the same people also fight so hard about other types of discrimination.

 

[tanj]

there is no Constitutional right to tell a private entity what they can allow or not allow in their domain. In fact, since they are considered press, you cannot force them to publish anything or not publish....if you don't like it, there are other forums you can join that are more to your leanings....

so private companies can refuse to serve black people? or same sex couples?. wow.
obviously there must be some exceptions to the broad claim you just made. and if there are exceptions, there can be made new exceptions.

as far as publishing, the company isn't publishing, it is the users publishing on the company's platform. facebook in particular even has a disclaimer of responsibility for what its users post, otherwise if they were the sole publishers, then they would be responsible.

 

[trouble13]

Personally, I agree that the government should not be in the business if telling businesses who they can or can not discriminate against. That should be left up to the free market.

A function of the gov is to prevent monopolies from forming and they should force companies that are too big to split.

There is also a question of what these big tech companies should be catorgized as. Are there a private industry or are they a public utility. I think there are solid arguments for both. The courts will need to decide this.

 

[What if...?]

Easily addressed.

We just need to go on those sites and talk mad slanderous shit about Republicans. The more outlandish the better. Get the tiktokkers on it, they love that kind of stuff.

I'm quite sure they'll love that free expression.

 

[iguanaman]

Pedophilia is against the law, so there is nothing wrong with blocking that.
Nobody is going to charge a hill for nazis, but I do understand the concern there.

BTW-- if the right has made "extremist" views more mainstream, and if Facebook et. al believes this and wishes to fight it, that is their right. But they should not receive a government benefit predicated upon expanding debate.

There is no predicate to the immunity from lawsuits. It is simply recognizing the fact that social media is not the same as other media and it could not exist without that immunity.

 

[iguanaman]

This is a good point. I remember them banning everyone who said Trump was a Russian agent. It was devastating to the platform. Half of the US and nearly all media entities were banned overnight. It was quite the ordeal, but it was for the greater good. Can't have that alt-left commy conspiracy theory nonsense being repeated with impunity.

There is actually evidence that the one term mistake took Russian help in the 2016 election and that he reciprocated by having his campaign manager give internal polling data to a Russian agent. It is all in the bipartisan Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. You should read it.

 

[GummyVitamins]

There is actually evidence that the one term mistake took Russian help in the 2016 election and that he reciprocated by having his campaign manager give internal polling data to a Russian agent. It is all in the bipartisan Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. You should read it.

See. If Facebook put warnings about misinformation and Twitter banned articles we wouldn't have so many confused poeple on this issue.

 

[Athanasius68]

There is no predicate to the immunity from lawsuits. It is simply recognizing the fact that social media is not the same as other media and it could not exist without that immunity.

Yes-- and the reason why it was thought social media should exist is because it offers a great opportunity for Americans to gather information and make decisions.
In other words, it increases speech.
So when Twitter et. al. censors speech, they are not engaging in expanding speech, but contracting it, which flies in the face of the rationale for the privilege.

 

[Athanasius68]

there is no Constitutional right to tell a private entity what they can allow or not allow in their domain. In fact, since they are considered press, you cannot force them to publish anything or not publish....if you don't like it, there are other forums you can join that are more to your leanings....

If they are considered "press" then they are publishers, and should not have the Sec 230 benefits.
Try as you might, can't have it both ways...

 

[Athanasius68]

It is a platform....they should not be responsible for example if someone else kills themselves, due to what another poster said to them. The person responsible should be the person bullying the other or making threats, etc...what happened to personal responsibility? I would agree if Facebook was actually creating the content, but they aren't...and they are not required to allow an certain ideal on their platform....

Ahh-- but if they are controlling for content, then they are publishing.
Because they are shaping and directing what appears on their site.

 

[Athanasius68]

There is actually evidence that the one term mistake took Russian help in the 2016 election and that he reciprocated by having his campaign manager give internal polling data to a Russian agent. It is all in the bipartisan Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. You should read it.

You should also-- the senate report said they did not know why Manafort did what he did.
There was certainly no evidence that he was directed to by Trump.

 

[iguanaman]

You should also-- the senate report said they did not know why Manafort did what he did.
There was certainly no evidence that he was directed to by Trump.

Wink wink....Yes mob bosses always keep their deniability. Manafort was hired because of his close relationship with the Kremlin. Now you are going to say that the one term mistake did not know that either because you defend the man no matter what.

 

[Athanasius68]

Wink wink....Yes mob bosses always keep their deniability. Manafort was hired because of his close relationship with the Kremlin

Manafort worked for Ukraine.
Moreover, the Senate report is pretty clear-- he took the job as campaign chairman in order to make make money for his business. That's what sending the data was all about it.

 

[iguanaman]

Manafort worked for Ukraine.
Moreover, the Senate report is pretty clear-- he took the job as campaign chairman in order to make make money for his business. That's what sending the data was all about it.

He worked for Kremlin interests in Ukraine you mean. He secretly took millions in Russian money while working for the Kremlin's stooge who was President of Ukraine and Trump pardoned him for it. He didn't need any money. He was charged with transferring internal polling data to a Russian agent he knew very well.

 

[screenwriter]

so private companies can refuse to serve black people? or same sex couples?. wow.
obviously there must be some exceptions to the broad claim you just made. and if there are exceptions, there can be made new exceptions.

as far as publishing, the company isn't publishing, it is the users publishing on the company's platform. facebook in particular even has a disclaimer of responsibility for what its users post, otherwise if they were the sole publishers, then they would be responsible.

Just like most online "news" is content from elsewhere. That way they can publish any form of opinion that is called "news" and not be responsible for content.

 

[JasperL]

You keep tripping up by insisting its about compulsion.
It isn't. They receive a government benefit-- a protection from being held liable for what appears on their site.
The benefit exists because the theory is that this protects free speech on the web.

That's only true to the extent that "free speech on the web" means you guys can have 'safe spaces' to express your opinion, censor all others, the fascists can have their safe spaces, and the racists, and the anti-Semites, and the commies, and the Bernie Bros. They can all censor anyone they damn well want for any damn reason they want, to build the kind of community on the web they want to have. Nowhere in the law or anywhere else is the presumption that Jewish websites need to host Jew hating neo-Nazi scum, or else they can be sued to oblivion.

And I'm sure it's fine if Biden and the Democrats pass a law that says, "If your parade is pro-Biden, you can use the streets of D.C. for FREE!!! A government benefit!!! And if your parade is pro-Trump or pro-GOP it will cost you $1 billion dollars!!" That's parceling out 'government benefits' based on the content of the speech, like you support. If that's the world you want, say so. There's no compulsion for the parade to be pro-Biden!!!!! No, no no!!! Not True! They are "free" to bash Biden if they want, of course they can, no one is forcing them to be pro-Biden, but if they decide to be pro-Trump it will only cost the organizers $1 BILLION DOLLARS!! That's freedom BABY!!

 

[JasperL]

When they said Twitter should be considered a "press entity" for purposes of campaign finance law, and compared them with the NY TIMES.

Again-- and to to keep on topic-- the issue is whether organizations like Twitter should receive a benefit under the law that is not available to the NY TIMES.
The FEC said Twitter was like the Times, and said the complaints about their actions should be directed to Congress.

The NYT has the exact same benefits, or not, under 230 as Twitter.

Goodness, this has only been pointed out to you about 100 times. You'd think it would sink in at some point, or you'd quit with the bogus talking points.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Texas social media censorship bill signed into law

Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill, HB20, on Thursday.

www.kvue.com

So let's see.
It's harder to vote in Texas.

it's actually easier to vote.

Abortion is basically illegal

There's no rights without life.

And now they think they can stop social media from banning people

I, also, wouldn't deny social media's right to ban gays.

Small government my ass

think of this as "preventing big corp"

 

[Risky Thicket]

Sanctioning liars isn't censorship.

It's more akin to fighting fraud.

Taliban = Texiban.

It’s getting hard to tell the difference.

 

[What if...?]

it's actually easier to vote.

There's no rights without life.

I, also, wouldn't deny social media's right to ban gays.

think of this as "preventing big corp"

Y'all talk like that but all the Republicans ever do is, wait for it, what "big corp" wants.

 

[What if...?]

He worked for Kremlin interests in Ukraine you mean. He secretly took millions in Russian money while working for the Kremlin's stooge who was President of Ukraine and Trump pardoned him for it. He didn't need any money. He was charged with transferring internal polling data to a Russian agent he knew very well.

And I posited from the beginning that evidence of collusion would include providing internal.polling data to the russians for the troll farms.

Most people are unaware that most polling is paid for by propagandists (spin doctors, narrative managers, the names change as they become negatively weighted) to see how their narratives are working.

Had that same information been provided to a PAC it would have been a clear violation of election laws.

Illegal coordination.

Or collusion, if you prefer that synonym.