Who gives a damn? Paper form isn't what anyone is talking about, or what any law impacts. And if any of the others publish anything in "paper form" they have the identical benefits to the NYT.Not in paper form.
230 very explicitly allows every website to "control what they permit on their site." There is a major section of that law that very deliberately and intentionally and explicitly gave them this authority, even to censor speech otherwise protected by the 1A. The idea that 230 didn't want this to happen is ignorant. You cannot have read the law and believe this, or you are lying about the law. Pick one.yep
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.
No, sir. It's really not about the users to any large, national social media platform. It's really about these social media platforms themselves. It's why Sect. 120.002(b) reads:From what I can see, where the website is based is not a factor. Again...it's about the user.
And this law has nothing to do with content newspapers publish.
A "fairly similar" law in Florida...and whatever its outcome in the courts might end up being...is irrelevant to any consideration of the Texas law. Unless, of course, the laws are identical. Are they?
This chapter applies only to a social media platform that functionally has more than 50 million active users in the United States in a calendar month.
You have shown no evidence of this.yep
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.
Correct. What you picked up on, but other people seem confused by is that the FEC's oversight is largely limited to donations and fundraising. Election "censorship" isn't really in their purview. This doesn't mean that Twitter et al didn't engage in partisan election censorship, just that the FEC has no jurisdiction to get involved.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.
I see you quoted me with this response, but I don't see the relevance.There is pro-trump crap all over FB and Twitter.
Reread your post that I responded to.I see you quoted me with this response, but I don't see the relevance.
I did. Feel free to elaborate.Reread your post that I responded to.
Right, nothing in the FEC decision indicates Twitter did or didn't engage in 'partisan election censorship.' Further, in a free society they can of course be partisan, same way Fox News or OAN or the Federalist can be as partisan as they want.Correct. What you picked up on, but other people seem confused by is that the FEC's oversight is largely limited to donations and fundraising. Election "censorship" isn't really in their purview. This doesn't mean that Twitter et al didn't engage in partisan election censorship, just that the FEC has no jurisdiction to get involved.
You have shown no evidence of this.
Right, nothing in the FEC decision indicates Twitter did or didn't engage in 'partisan election censorship.' Further, in a free society they can of course be partisan, same way Fox News or OAN or the Federalist can be as partisan as they want.
Posting a link to the entire law does not support your assertion. A former senator's comments does not support your assertion.I have cited the actual law.
And somebody else linked to an article by former Sen Wyden, the man who spearheaded the legislation in the Senate, which says the same thing.
Posting a link to the entire law does not support your assertion. A former senator's comments does not support your assertion.
Where did you post the actual verbiage that you are insisting is in the law?When the assertions appear in the actual law, yes it does.
When the author of the law says it is so, it's pretty good support to say so as well.
Round and round we go. You make the same points over and over, refuse to acknowledge the effect the Texas law will have, which is to demand that Jewish websites provide a platform for Jew-hating neo-Nazis, etc. or else subject themselves to bankrupting lawsuits, to then claim that this benefit should only be available to those that don't censor on "content," which would mean NO WEBSITE IN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERNET that isn't a crap-filled sewer of vermin and trolls would qualify for the liability protections, because ALL websites that allow the public, you and me, to post censor for content. All of them.This is true.
But shouldn't expect to be immune from responsibility from what is permitted to be posted.
You misstate what the law says.I have cited the actual law.
For some reason, you believe the 1A and protections of freedom of speech means that private property owners should be required by law allow anyone to spew any garbage they want on their property, or else. It's because you have to believe that if some website isn't neutral to right wingers then the 'rights' of right wingers have been violated, but that's false. In a free society we are in fact not obligated to promote views with which we disagree, whether that's racism, anti-Semitism, ANTIFA, BLM, the LBTG agenda, pro or con, SSM, pro or con, abortion, pro or con, etc........... The 1A in fact protects us from being so obligated. It both prevents the government from censoring speech, and it prevents the government from compelling speech.Then you have less ground to stand upon in defending Twitter et. al sec 230 protections.
For some reason, you believe the 1A and protections of freedom of speech means that private property owners should be required by law allow anyone to spew any garbage they want on their property, or else. It's because you have to believe that if some website isn't neutral to right wingers then the 'rights' of right wingers have been violated, but that's false. In a free society we are in fact not obligated to promote views with which we disagree, whether that's racism, anti-Semitism, ANTIFA, BLM, the LBTG agenda, pro or con, SSM, pro or con, abortion, pro or con, etc........... The 1A in fact protects us from being so obligated. It both prevents the government from censoring speech, and it prevents the government from compelling speech.
And no matter how many times you avoid the point, when the government says, like Texas does - carry the views of neo-Nazi pieces of shit, etc...., (their "content" is just as protected as yours is, under the 1A) or else, the government is compelling speech. It doesn't matter if the "or else" is to jail them, or to subject them to bankrupting lawsuits that wouldn't be possible if they DID carry the views of neo-Nazi scum.
You misstate what the law says.
"230 very explicitly allows every website to "control what they permit on their site." There is a major section of that law that very deliberately and intentionally and explicitly gave them this authority, even to censor speech otherwise protected by the 1A. The idea that 230 didn't want this to happen is ignorant. You cannot have read the law and believe this, or you are lying about the law. Pick one.
Furthermore every single website that anyone has ever heard of that is more than about 3 users, roughly 100.0% of them, "control for what they permit on their site." If they don't, it's a sewer."
um, Texas only has a population of 29 million...how would they have 50 million users?No, sir. It's really not about the users to any large, national social media platform. It's really about these social media platforms themselves. It's why Sect. 120.002(b) reads:
If this was just about social media users in Texas, why would the law specifically state "social media platforms" WITH 50 million or more ACTIVE USERS in the U.S. as opposed to restricting that platforms users to the state of Texas? I'm quite sure Texas can have 50 million users to any given social media platform within the state alone. So, why did they feel compelled to broaden that user reach across the country?
Answer: Texas Republican legislators are trying to censor large, national social media platforms. They only include "users" to justify how large a digital footprint the social media platform has.
Where did you post the actual verbiage that you are insisting is in the law?
Another leftist who doesn't understand the difference between free markets and monopolies.The party of free markets, lol.
Facebook and Twitter aren't monopolies...Another leftist who doesn't understand the difference between free markets and monopolies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?