Texas social media censorship bill signed into law

[DarkWizard12]

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

Since when were the GOP promoting LGBT flags and BLM and literally every popular movement big corp has ever promoted on twitter?

 

[iguanaman]

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.

Trump had a now defunct and quite sleazy polling company called Cambridge Analytica doing his election strategy. They stole the data of 50 million Facebook subscribers and used that to target disgruntled Bernie supporters with Putin's help of course. It worked incredibly well too.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof​

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

 

[What if...?]

Trump had a now defunct and quite sleazy polling company called Cambridge Analytica doing his election strategy. They stole the data of 50 million Facebook subscribers and used that to target disgruntled Bernie supporters with Putin's help of course. It worked incredibly well too.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof​

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

And don't forget that CA was Bannon's baby.

Who quite obviously has completely blackened his Dorian Grey painting.

 

[What if...?]

Since when were the GOP promoting LGBT flags and BLM and literally every popular movement big corp has ever promoted on twitter?

They just gave them tax breaks and favorable regulations. They don't care what any of the people you mention think or want.

 

[JasperL]

What they said was that it was a commercial decision and they don't have to be politically neutral in their commercial decisions which a fun way of saying they're obviously partisan and that's okay. They said the remedy is legislative... Hence the Texas law.

They at least also said that the 1A almost surely protects them, that nothing requires any entity to be neutral. That's the problem with the Texas law - it obliterates the 1A in the guise of promoting 'free speech.' In a free country, that means you, any entity, any news org, has the 'right' to be as partisan as they want with their own 'speech' and what they allow in their houses, in their church, at their place of business, in their back yard, or on their websites. If you want the government to compel, say, a Jewish website to be neutral to neo-Nazis, you need to be clear about that.

 

[DarkWizard12]

They just gave them tax breaks and favorable regulations. They don't care what any of the people you mention think or want.

They give everyone tax breaks.

they don't care if you're liberal or not.

I do agree though, they need more than that to be an effective party. Tax breaks really aren't the sexy issues people are dealing with now.

 

[What if...?]

They give everyone tax breaks.

they don't care if you're liberal or not.

I do agree though, they need more than that to be an effective party. Tax breaks really aren't the sexy issues people are dealing with now.

They never really give tax breaks to single men at median income.

 

[Plasmaball]

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"

No

 

[reflechissez]

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.
It is self-evident when the sites are censoring for content, the sites are not holding up their end of the deal.

But if you are worried about the smaller sites, such as DP, then perhaps we can take a page from the Texas law and set a minimum number of members as also part of the criteria.
In other words, make the big guys make the choice.

Whose theory is that?

 

[reflechissez]

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.

Twitter and FB don't give a crap whether people "debate" or not. That's something you made up.

 

[reflechissez]

The story wasn't against their terms of service and they made defamatory statements that it was hacked content when there was never any indication that the content was hacked. The only reason they blocked it was because it was a November surprise that would have helped Trump in a Presidential election that they didn't want him to win. When you publicly put your foot on the scales of elections you're gonna start getting regulated. Whether you agree with Texas or not you had to see this coming when the election interference is so blatant. Imagine if your phone company disconnected your line because you said something that was in support of a candidate that the phone company didn't like and they wanted to suppress speach that benefited certain candidates. Section 230 or not, you've stepped in some shit and now you're gonna get retaliation.

There is pro-trump crap all over FB and Twitter.

 

[reflechissez]

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.

No. That's your opinion. Neither FB nor Twitter have ever held themselves out to be research aggregators. That's more of your made-up stuff.

 

[Athanasius68]

No. That's your opinion. Neither FB nor Twitter have ever held themselves out to be research aggregators. That's more of your made-up stuff.

Then you have less ground to stand upon in defending Twitter et. al sec 230 protections.

 

[Athanasius68]

Twitter and FB don't give a crap whether people "debate" or not. That's something you made up.

Then you have less ground upon in defending their sec 230 protections.

 

[Athanasius68]

Whose theory is that?

Congress-- when they passed the law.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

Not in paper form.

 

[Athanasius68]

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!!

That is ok-- if the bernie bros ect wish to hang out together and only screen for bernie bros stuff that's ok.
But then they are shaping content and direction-- they are publishing.

 

[reflechissez]

Then you have less ground to stand upon in defending Twitter et. al sec 230 protections.

That makes no sense.

 

[reflechissez]

Then you have less ground upon in defending their sec 230 protections.

Still makes no sense.

 

[reflechissez]

Congress-- when they passed the law.

Nope.

 

[ClaraD]

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.

They already have ruled on these things before...and the Supreme Court already said you cannot force the press to publish anything...that would include public message boards....

 

[ClaraD]

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

no, they aren't...but even if they were...that would make them 'press' and unable to be controlled by the government, as to what they allow or don't allow

 

[Athanasius68]

no, they aren't...but even if they were...that would make them 'press' and unable to be controlled by the government, as to what they allow or don't allow

Nobody is seeking to control what they post.
The issue is immunity from liability.
A newspaper is not immune from accountability for what appears in their pages.

 

[Athanasius68]

yep

Still makes no sense.

The 1996 law recognized that the internet could be a tremendous boon for people to acquire knowledge, information.
The objective was to increase this ability.
It says thiis flat out in Sec 230.

So sec 230 was set up, in part, to protect these sites from liability of content that others uploaded onto their sites.

But if they are going to control what they permit on their sites, if they are going to shaope and direct content because of what they like and dislike, then clearly they are not expanding the sharimg of information, but instead are limiting it.

 

[ClaraD]

Nobody is seeking to control what they post.
The issue is immunity from liability.
A newspaper is not immune from accountability for what appears in their pages.

yeah, they kind of are...if they are going to place penalties for removing posters or posts....they are trying to control what they post and forcing them to publish what they do not want to....