Texas social media censorship bill signed into law

[Carl Young]

Facebook and Twitter aren't monopolies...

Do you know who the owners of these social media giants are and their relationship?

 

[ClaraD]

Do you know who the owners of these social media giants are and their relationship?

I don't need to ...and no they aren't monopolies...a monopoly means that there are no other options...for instance only Coca Cola existing and no other soft drink bottler period....that is a monopoly....there are multiple platforms across the Internet...including some not so wonderful ones...and some very right wing nonsense ones.

 

[CaughtInThe]

how funny is it that Republicans conned the base into thinking that Republican politicians were for "small government".


it was just a lie and slogan. like how "pro-live" is a lie and just a slogan.

 

[GummyVitamins]

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.

Yes, but the difference is that unlike Fox News the social media companies receive special protections from the government with the intention that they would be an open platform for the public to use. When they actively seek to tip the scales of an election through political censorship they're going to get some pushback from the people who feel disenfranchised.

 

[JasperL]

No-- I think that the present law is structured so as to allow a needed and good benefit.
However, I do think to qualify for that benefit requires a bit of a revision.

Right, you believe e.g. Jewish websites ought to host Jew hating neo-Nazis. You won't admit that, but that's what you want when you want to disqualify for benefits websites that 'censor for content', such as being Jew hating Nazis.

 

[RAMOSS]

how funny is it that Republicans conned the base into thinking that Republican politicians were for "small government".


it was just a lie and slogan. like how "pro-live" is a lie and just a slogan.

I think that many of the Republican side get campaign tactics from the RNC. Once, it was family values, but that got washed away in a series of sex scandals. Next, it was 'love the constitution, but, well then 1/6/2021 happened. Now, I am seeing bible quotes from many republicans, a large number never did that before. It's like they are little robots.

 

[JasperL]

Yes, but the difference is that unlike Fox News the social media companies receive special protections from the government with the intention that they would be an open platform for the public to use.

That "intention" is fabricated. There is no such "intention" in the law, and no website on this planet that you can name that anyone else has heard of is an "open platform" unless it's a sewer like on of the 'chan' places. That's what happens to "open platforms."

So when you say "open platforms" define that in a way that means something other than "they can't be mean to people you like" or "they can't be big old meanies to Trump and the MAGAs."

I don't think you can unless you really mean "open" to racists, neo-Nazis, fascists, run of the mill anti-Semites, homophobes, trolls, women haters, etc.. If you mean that websites need to be "open platforms" for the vermin on the web, say that.

When they actively seek to tip the scales of an election through political censorship they're going to get some pushback from the people who feel disenfranchised.

Boo hoo. There are thousands of websites out there that actively seek to tip the scales of an election through "political censorship." If you don't want that to happen, then let's just get rid of the 1A and let government bureaucrats decide who people can censor or not. Or maybe we can just ask the head of the RNC or whoever is running Trump's 2024 bid or his latest grift, and get to the answer you really want here.

 

[JasperL]

Yes, but the difference is that unlike Fox News the social media companies receive special protections from the government

They don't actually. Fox News runs all kinds of websites with comments allowed, and Fox News gets the same protection as Twitter for content posted by others, and they can censor it however Fox News or Murdoch wants it censored, and they don't need to ask permission to ban anyone, for any reason, or delete any comments they want, for any reason. Facebook is just as liable for content THEY create as Fox News. You guys really don't understand the law, at all.

 

[JasperL]

Another leftist who doesn't understand the difference between free markets and monopolies.

Apparently you don't know what a monopoly is.

But even if FB or Twitter are monopolies, the way to deal with that is break them up, not take a wrecking ball to the 1A to deal with the problems of these websites being too big for your liking. I'd actually support much of that. They do have too much power, and so do companies in dozens of other industries who have consolidated into just a few massive players in each industry.

 

[Carl Young]

Apparently you don't know what a monopoly is.

But even if FB or Twitter are monopolies, the way to deal with that is break them up, not take a wrecking ball to the 1A to deal with the problems of these websites being too big for your liking. I'd actually support much of that. They do have too much power, and so do companies in dozens of other industries who have consolidated into just a few massive players in each industry.

These monopolies have been broken up before but there are also anti trust laws which might apply.

 

[JasperL]

These monopolies have been broken up before but there are also anti trust laws which might apply.

That's fine. As I said, I don't object to complaints along those lines. But in my view the current attack on them misses the boat entirely. People care that they allegedly "censor" conservatives too often because.....they are too big. Deal with that, don't crap on the 1A to try to get around dealing with the actual problem.

 

[reflechissez]

Section A
Part 1-5

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

I read it. There is nothing in there that says what you have been saying.

What is being asked is that special protections sites receive, predicated on the belief they exist to foster debate, is reciprocated by fostering that debate.

The purpose by sec 230 was to foster and expand debate.

Congress decided that. They said that they wanted expand debate and free speech on the internet

But when their business model is predicated upon a law the that they exist in order to provide wide and diverse opinion and views on the internet,

A reason for the law-- to foster debate and the sharing of information.

All the reform does is keeps Twitter et. al. from playing games-- claiming they are a neutral organization while simultaneously suppressing that which they don't like.

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

 

[Carl Young]

That's fine. As I said, I don't object to complaints along those lines. But in my view the current attack on them misses the boat entirely. People care that they allegedly "censor" conservatives too often because.....they are too big. Deal with that, don't crap on the 1A to try to get around dealing with the actual problem.

Nowhere did I 'crap on the 1A' and if you think I did you can point out where this took place. In fact the 1A is being ignored by these social media giants and they have now become propaganda machines. They are the threat because they control the conversation of today, the past and then, as Orwell predicted, the future.

I don't know what you expect me to 'deal with' since I'm only an observer in all of this. they don't just censor Conservatives, btw, though that's most common. They'll also censor liberals unless they follow their dictates. Covid was an excellent example of that.

 

[Carl Young]

That "intention" is fabricated. There is no such "intention" in the law, and no website on this planet that you can name that anyone else has heard of is an "open platform" unless it's a sewer like on of the 'chan' places. That's what happens to "open platforms."

So when you say "open platforms" define that in a way that means something other than "they can't be mean to people you like" or "they can't be big old meanies to Trump and the MAGAs."

I don't think you can unless you really mean "open" to racists, neo-Nazis, fascists, run of the mill anti-Semites, homophobes, trolls, women haters, etc.. If you mean that websites need to be "open platforms" for the vermin on the web, say that.


Boo hoo. There are thousands of websites out there that actively seek to tip the scales of an election through "political censorship." If you don't want that to happen, then let's just get rid of the 1A and let government bureaucrats decide who people can censor or not. Or maybe we can just ask the head of the RNC or whoever is running Trump's 2024 bid or his latest grift, and get to the answer you really want here.

You're completely missing the points the poster made and are unaware of the history involving the censorship of ideas. It is not a matter of 'the vermin' you describe but the censorship of legitimate doctors, for example, who disagree with the value of having to wear masks. We all know, or should know, they are ineffective, but that idea when pointed out by doctors, has been removed from social media..

 

[GummyVitamins]

That "intention" is fabricated. There is no such "intention" in the law, and no website on this planet that you can name that anyone else has heard of is an "open platform" unless it's a sewer like on of the 'chan' places. That's what happens to "open platforms."

The law itself clearly states its findings for its need up front:

(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

...

(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

It's also very clear on what it thinks about a state's ability to pass laws in this arena:

(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

 

[madman]

Another leftist who doesn't understand the difference between free markets and monopolies.

and another white winger that doesnt know what a monopoly is.

 

[JasperL]

The law itself clearly states its findings for its need up front:

Nothing in that section implies that a Jewish website needs to/must/should offer a platform for neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis can of course have their own platform to discuss the finer points of hating Jews if they want.

It's also very clear on what it thinks about a state's ability to pass laws in this arena:

Right - the Texas law is inconsistent with 230, and 230 says they can't do that. Actually the Texas law says it defers to federal law, so it's likely unable to force the 'censorship' provisions.

 

[GummyVitamins]

They don't actually. Fox News runs all kinds of websites with comments allowed, and Fox News gets the same protection as Twitter for content posted by others, and they can censor it however Fox News or Murdoch wants it censored, and they don't need to ask permission to ban anyone, for any reason, or delete any comments they want, for any reason. Facebook is just as liable for content THEY create as Fox News. You guys really don't understand the law, at all.

When discussing Fox News the implication was the news service. However, the Texas censorship law would also protect users commenting on Fox News articles. By saying "you guys really don't understand the law, at all" I think you should include yourself.

 

[Athanasius68]

Right, you believe e.g. Jewish websites ought to host Jew hating neo-Nazis. You won't admit that, but that's what you want when you want to disqualify for benefits websites that 'censor for content', such as being Jew hating Nazis.

Then add a registered number minimum on the site in addition to illegal posts to qualify for the exemption.

Problem solved.

 

[JasperL]

When discussing Fox News the implication was the news service. However, the Texas censorship law would also protect users commenting on Fox News articles. By saying "you guys really don't understand the law, at all" I think you should include yourself.

The point was that law does not distinguish between "social media" companies and news networks or online news companies or forums like this one, or blogs, or online shopping websites, or the NYT or WaPo with online presences, or anything else. The distinction in the law is who created the content and uploaded it. For example, any website, including Amazon that accepts reviews from users like you and me, and any other place that accepts reviews, is protected from being sued based on a review they allow to be posted, because the content is created by users of Amazon, or whatever is your favorite online shopping place, or Yelp, TripAdvisor, etc. They are protected because of who created that content - the public, users. If Amazon creates content, they are not protected. If Facebook creates content they are not protected. If TripAdvisor commissions a person to review hotels in Bermuda and they post it and it's defamatory, TripAdvisor isn't protected. If a user of a hotel in Bermuda puts up a defamatory review, TripAdvisor is protected. Etc.....

The Texas 'censorship' law would prevent Fox like all others from booting racist dirtbags from their comments section, and from booting the neo-Nazi scum. If they are the "users" you say the law would protect, that's exactly correct - it will protect online vermin, and force Fox and others to host the dregs of the online world on their platforms, or else.

If you are good with that, OK, but I don't see why Fox News should have to allow their comments section to be taken over by vermin. They're running a business and those people are bad for business, they drive off reasonable people and Texas would tell them - too damn bad. You can't censor based on "viewpoint."

 

[JasperL]

Then add a registered number minimum on the site in addition to illegal posts to qualify for the exemption.

Problem solved.

One again, you refuse to admit what you actually want to happen. I just wish you guys could honestly admit the implications of this supposed principle you're defending.

 

[Athanasius68]

One again, you refuse to admit what you actually want to happen. I just wish you guys could honestly admit the implications of this supposed principle you're defending.

The principle being defended here is free speech.

 

[ClaraD]

The principle being defended here is free speech.

you might want to read the Constitution again...we aren't guaranteed a platform where ever or when ever we want...we are only guaranteed not to be regulated by the government in our speech....thus why you cannot, without consequences, insult your boss and still not be fired for it...you don't have a right to free speech in private sectors...your only protection is that you won't be arrested, fined, etc, for your speech.

 

[Athanasius68]

you might want to read the Constitution again...we aren't guaranteed a platform where ever or when ever we want...we are only guaranteed not to be regulated by the government in our speech....thus why you cannot, without consequences, insult your boss and still not be fired for it...you don't have a right to free speech in private sectors...your only protection is that you won't be arrested, fined, etc, for your speech.

Nobody is asking for a platform where "we" are guaranteed to speak.

What is being suggested is that if platforms are going to censor because they don't like the content of what appears, they should not have the immunity from liability the law as spelled out in sec 230 gives them.
If they want to censor, then by all means, do so. They just won't have the immunity. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

If the concern is in doing would force small sites to carry ideas the owners do not like, then further amend sec 230 for it to apply to sites of certain sizes.

 

[ClaraD]

Nobody is asking for a platform where "we" are guaranteed to speak.

What is being suggested is that if platforms are going to censor because they don't like the content of what appears, they should not have the immunity from liability the law as spelled out in sec 230 gives them.
If they want to censor, then by all means, do so. They just won't have the immunity. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

If the concern is in doing would force small sites to carry ideas the owners do not like, then further amend sec 230 for it to apply to sites of certain sizes.

that isn't what the law says....it says they have a guaranteed platform to speak without being removed from said platform....it has zero to do with sec 230...and the only person that should be responsible for the content they create, is the person that is writing from their keyboard...for instance if you post/or I post something defamatory, then we alone should be responsible, not the platform that it was posted from...could they perhaps be forced to remove defamatory content...yeah...but that is it...getting banned from a platform isn't a reason to sue the platform...and it shouldn't be...but Texas wants it to be....and all of this is all about Trump, it isn't about you....Texas doesn't care what you can or cannot post...they only cared when Trump got booted.