Law Texas social media anti-censorship law goes into effect

[Mack McMarkles]

It wouldn't ever be exact same amount but it shouldnt be clearly biased either.

why not?

If i want to be the host of a forum and get some investors to create one, why should I not be allowed to have rules on my sight?

If this site wanted to be only MMA and allow no 'conspiracy theories' talk or 'white supremacy, white nationalist talk', why can they not set their own rules?

 

[SLUG1186]

No. It doesn't matter what kind of company they are. Here's the full text of the First Amendment:



There's nothing about losing your right if you're a platform or anything even remotely close to that. Whoever you are, you absolutely have the right to criticize the president, and it's not an attack on anyone's freedom of speech if you do. The reason we value freedom of speech in the first place is precisely because we want to be able to criticize elected officials.



I don't agree that only gov't-approved people should be allowed to speak freely.

Which is why we shouldn't allow a powerful corporation, that is also the most popular online speech platform, to ban or silence critics of the government or government officials and their narratives, regardless of what side of the isle they are on.

No one said anything about them losing their free speech rights simply because they are a platform or that people don't have a right to criticize the president. You keep pulling this garbage out of nowhere to try and justify shitting on one side, when both sides are guilty of trying to silence the other. You are either misinterpreting what I'm saying or purposely being misleading.

We as a society need to decide whether some of these social media companies should be considered common carriers or not. If Twitter is now the modern version of a public forum, then they should be regulated as such.

 

[jefferz]

The mods are 99% left in the war room. The two newest mods are very left with one having TDS defcon level 10. Quite frankly that’s ridiculous for this sub forum hence the worst inconsistencies in my time here. It’s fine if they want to have super far slanted mods politically but keep them in the other forums. Lead, Thug and Mic were all balanced and even the other more established leftist mods like Pan are have a shred of consistency.

Always a victim.

 

[shockaholic12]

Which is why we shouldn't allow a powerful corporation, that is also the most popular online speech platform, to ban or silence critics of the government or government officials and their narratives, regardless of what side of the isle they are on.

No one said anything about them losing their free speech rights simply because they are a platform or that people don't have a right to criticize the president. You keep pulling this garbage out of nowhere to try and justify shitting on one side, when both sides are guilty of trying to silence the other. You are either misinterpreting what I'm saying or purposely being misleading.

We as a society need to decide whether some of these social media companies should be considered common carriers or not. If Twitter is now the modern version of a public forum, then they should be regulated as such.

the internet is the public forum, twitter is not itself the forum. Thus the countless other social media sites, chat rooms, etc.

Follow your logic for a second, if everyone deleted twitter tomorrow you’re saying there’s no longer a public forum for the people? That’s clearly false. So is your premise.

If you pass this law and suddenly there’s new app that competes for twitters users, does this law just get passed around like a hot potato and get applied to whatever private social media platform is the flavor of the year? Is it lifted from a company if they fall below a certain user count then reapplied when they go back above it?

 

[Lead]

@Jack V Savage @Lead

So how do you square your views with phone companies? Ubiquitous means of communication ran by private sector companies.

There’s a post earlier in here but I think common carrier laws can be expanded but I don’t know if what I’d be proposing would be the same definition. Id want legislators to explore making payment processors, domain registrations/ hosting, data hosting/ storage closer to that set up as something that can be essential to getting online and I don’t see a reason for a select few companies being gate keepers with those services as it’s uniform and any customer using it doesn’t impact the overall product. With social media, the community is the product. If you have to have crappy users on the platform, it could suddenly be less enjoyable for other users and they drop off. As a result, it makes sense as well as all the others I said above that social media is far different from a utility.

Actually let me try to make it more formulaic. I reserve the right to update this as I’m posting it on the spot:
1. Is the company’s product/ service significantly altered if any person is taken on as a customer
2. Are there a limited amount of companies which provide this service/ product and as a result, could be reasonable seen as blocking the person out as a group
3. Is the service/ product uniform and not unique between one company to another
4. If a person is not given this service/ product despite being able to pay for it, are they severely (emphasis on severely there) impacted to do commercial activity/ basic tasks needed to operate personally?
5. (Optional) Has the government provided significant subsidies to the companies which provide this product / service. I’m very hesitant to make this a tenant as nearly anything online suddenly becomes utility when I think most people see the infrastructure as an overall public good we agree to build and not to make people or companies indebted to the government in using it.

I’d say these are the main four/ five provisions Im thinking of which make me think toward common carrier or utility needs. For phone calls, I think all those boxes get checked. For utilities as basic as water, I’d probably modify it a little more but it’s pretty close there. For social media, I think nearly number of those 4-5 things apply. I’m sure some would disagree with me but I just don’t see it.

Also, keep in mind a call is a one on one communication. How much uproar have we seen about these companies and how they handle DMs? Next to none from what I’ve seen. Private messages to one another have nearly no moderation and it’s partly due to #1-3 above. Those three items show a completely different approach by the companies which to me says they are acting somewhat to market pressures in how they operate. It’s business decisions and when it’s a poor enough one, they will pay for it with loss of value/ profits.

 

[IamStryker]

why not?

If i want to be the host of a forum and get some investors to create one, why should I not be allowed to have rules on my sight?

If this site wanted to be only MMA and allow no 'conspiracy theories' talk or 'white supremacy, white nationalist talk', why can they not set their own rules?

I definitely didn't say that. As long as your rules are clear and enforced impartially. I hate the BS where they say you violated something but don't specifically say how. As someone right leaning I also can not stand societies general biased against conservatives. There should be no repercussions from simply being on the right and giving conservative takes.

 

[IamStryker]

Always a victim.

Im no victim but can confirm a mod censoring my posts and his left wing bias being very clear to me.

 

[Lead]

why not?

If i want to be the host of a forum and get some investors to create one, why should I not be allowed to have rules on my sight?

If this site wanted to be only MMA and allow no 'conspiracy theories' talk or 'white supremacy, white nationalist talk', why can they not set their own rules?

Additionally, if the rules of a forum became the same overnight, how fast would it be until we had likely a handful or single forum site? I think it would make less players in the market then more. I mean, we all know about offshoot forums anytime there’s anger with staff on a forum site. They pack their bags and host a community elsewhere with their own rules. Hell, even on a forum, there are different rules with each subforum to a degree. Most people understand the good in having a Mayberry (higher maintenance on rules, keeping things friendly) and an OT (hands off on rules, more freedom but can be a magnet for crappier people to herd to) but under this idea in this thread, we’d have a bunch of OTs because freedom? Doesn’t seem like it to me. Just seems like a really really shitty idea for changing the internet and stifling overall innovation.

 

[Lead]

Like really fellow sherdoggers, explain to me why there should be a law which makes Mayberry essentially illegal or the War Room simply memes and flaming? We really can’t see the good in allowing private companies to cultivate what they want their communities to look like and allow people to decide where to spend or not spend their time?

 

[SLUG1186]

the internet is the public forum, twitter is not itself the forum. Thus the countless other social media sites, chat rooms, etc.

Follow your logic for a second, if everyone deleted twitter tomorrow you’re saying there’s no longer a public forum for the people? That’s clearly false. So is your premise.

If you pass this law and suddenly there’s new app that competes for twitters users, does this law just get passed around like a hot potato and get applied to whatever private social media platform is the flavor of the year? Is it lifted from a company if they fall below a certain user count then reapplied when they go back above it?

I never said Twitter is the only public forum and by my logic never even insinuated that. Like I've said repeatedly, we need to decide whether they and other social media companies, should be common carriers or not.

 

[SLUG1186]

Like really fellow sherdoggers, explain to me why there should be a law which makes Mayberry essentially illegal or the War Room simply memes and flaming? We really can’t see the good in allowing private companies to cultivate what they want their communities to look like and allow people to decide where to spend or not spend their time?

I'm not a fan of government regulation for the most part. I'm also not a fan of corporate power running rampant. Social media has changed the landscape for how we receive news and communicate and I don't think it's something that should be brushed off or taken lightly. And in this environment, I really don't trust any politicians from either side to put through any kind of reasonable solution.

 

[Lead]

I'm not a fan of government regulation for the most part. I'm also not a fan of corporate power running rampant. Social media has changed the landscape for how we receive news and communicate and I don't think it's something that should be brushed off or taken lightly. And in this environment, I really don't trust any politicians from either side to put through any kind of reasonable solution.

It has changed the environment in the aspect we are able to consume News and communicate about it more than ever before across more platforms and mediums then ever before. I don’t see a problem with not liking Twitter or whatever but changing everything around just to spite them is short sighted and missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage @Lead

So how do you square your views with phone companies? Ubiquitous means of communication ran by private sector companies.

Not following exactly. I would oppose monitoring anyone's calls or denying them phone service or something (is that the comparison?). Similarly, I would oppose like blocking anyone from being on the internet.

That is a deflection.

From what to what? I'm saying that a true statement is a true statement. Doesn't matter who makes it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Which is why we shouldn't allow a powerful corporation, that is also the most popular online speech platform, to ban or silence critics of the government or government officials and their narratives, regardless of what side of the isle they are on.

Who is doing that? Or are you just saying that hypothetically if there's a very powerful corporation, it shouldn't ban critics of the gov't? I agree with that.

No one said anything about them losing their free speech rights simply because they are a platform or that people don't have a right to criticize the president. You keep pulling this garbage out of nowhere to try and justify shitting on one side, when both sides are guilty of trying to silence the other. You are either misinterpreting what I'm saying or purposely being misleading.

No, I'm pointing out a real argument that was made during Trump's presidency. Twitter shouldn't be allowed to put a fact-check note on his false claims because it violates his freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is precisely about allowing people to be able to criticize the gov't, not protecting the gov't from criticism.

We as a society need to decide whether some of these social media companies should be considered common carriers or not. If Twitter is now the modern version of a public forum, then they should be regulated as such.

Don't know what you mean by considering them common carriers. Freedom of speech doesn't rely on the gov't licensing you to be OK to speak. It's the opposite of that. And obviously no website or app is the sole gatekeeper of anyone's freedom of speech.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

The party of no government overreach introduces a bill built on government over reach.
Owning the libs!!!

 

[SLUG1186]

It has changed the environment in the aspect we are able to consume News and communicate about it more than ever before across more platforms and mediums then ever before. I don’t see a problem with not liking Twitter or whatever but changing everything around just to spite them is short sighted and missing the forest for the trees.

And that is a good thing. But if I go to Atlanta, to a public park to spread my message that Donald Trump is satan incarnate, they can't ban me from the public park. It's not that they can't because there are other public parks I can go to, they can't because it violates my free speech. Likewise, just because I can go to another social media site, twitter banning me is suppressing my speech, especially when they have the largest number of users. Now, Twitter is not the government, so it is not in violation of the 1st amendment. The question is, should social media be considered something like a public forum, I think yes. If social media is the new and most popular version of the public forum (not the only public forum), then the same rules should apply.

 

[sickc0d3r]

And that is a good thing. But if I go to Atlanta, to a public park to spread my message that Donald Trump is satan incarnate, they can't ban me from the public park. It's not that they can't because there are other public parks I can go to, they can't because it violates my free speech.

Yeah, because a public park is state run and owned by the public. Try walking into a Bass Pro Shop and doing that shit.

 

[Lead]

And that is a good thing. But if I go to Atlanta, to a public park to spread my message that Donald Trump is satan incarnate, they can't ban me from the public park. It's not that they can't because there are other public parks I can go to, they can't because it violates my free speech. Likewise, just because I can go to another social media site, twitter banning me is suppressing my speech, especially when they have the largest number of users. Now, Twitter is not the government, so it is not in violation of the 1st amendment. The question is, should social media be considered something like a public forum, I think yes. If social media is the new and most popular version of the public forum (not the only public forum), then the same rules should apply.

Terrible analogy there. I mention there being a lot of options because of this being a private industry/ the market place. If there were say a single social media platform and no other way to make an alternative, maybe there begins to be an argument. But that isn’t the case. There are plenty of social platforms and none of them are obligated to let people say whatever they want. It’s a complete misunderstanding of the 1at amendment that I can see and imo is actually a reflection of how good people have it these days. People are so use to saying whatever they want so often, without so few repercussions, that they get to the point where they even want to apply it on private platforms. That isn’t how it works though. Social media isn’t a public park. If you want the government to make their own public social media, maybe try that but I think that would just be a bust. Twitter, Facebook etc has no obligation to host your opinions regardless of their content and government isn’t capable of stepping in on every grievance people have about moderation on the the internet.

 

[sickc0d3r]

And that is a good thing. But if I go to Atlanta, to a public park to spread my message that Donald Trump is satan incarnate, they can't ban me from the public park. It's not that they can't because there are other public parks I can go to, they can't because it violates my free speech. Likewise, just because I can go to another social media site, twitter banning me is suppressing my speech, especially when they have the largest number of users. Now, Twitter is not the government, so it is not in violation of the 1st amendment. The question is, should social media be considered something like a public forum, I think yes. If social media is the new and most popular version of the public forum (not the only public forum), then the same rules should apply.

Why should corps be considered public forums just because they are popular? They aren’t allowed to have a business model anymore? How about we create a state run public forum with no censorship and leave successful private businesses to do business.

 

[kflo]

I definitely didn't say that. As long as your rules are clear and enforced impartially. I hate the BS where they say you violated something but don't specifically say how. As someone right leaning I also can not stand societies general biased against conservatives. There should be no repercussions from simply being on the right and giving conservative takes.

What would be an example of a “conservative take” that gets censored?