Big Tech/Free speech

[-CarlHungus-]

I have no clue what to do about this issue. Been reading a bit from some voices I like, and even then there doesn't seem to be a coherent answer.

Yes, Twitter/Facebook/Google/Apple/Amazon are private companies. But if they keep Gab/Parler off of their app stores/search engines/servers, then how can anyone "compete?"

Is social media the modern day town square? The founders clearly wanted freedom of speech at the town square, where the government was in charge of the town square. What happens when the town square is now online?

I'm wary of government getting too involved, but also wary of giving all of this power to big tech. When you can silence the king, you are the king.

I don't know what to think about all this.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

I don't know what to think. It's reasonable to think Trump incited violence. But all kinds of people on twitter do that and there's selective enforcement of terms of service.

It wouldn't bother as much, but there's a huge camp of people that think hurt feelings = violence.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

I think we will also see foreign governments diversify social networks away from these platforms.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Hard to know - maybe it’s not a slippery slope?

 

[GK4Herd]

Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio(1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.

 

[GK4Herd]

Here’s the thing I’m having trouble wrapping my head around...section 235 gives these companies broad protection against liability from third party posting. Why would the Trump administration want to get rid of it? Wouldn’t that pretty much guarantee that any voice that can be construed as the least bit inflammatory be removed? Platforms like Parler are providing a forum for fairly libelous stuff. That would certainly go away with the revocation of section 230. On a side note, even Parler found Lin Wood’s post about executing Pence too much and removed it.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Are they platforms or publishers?

 

[GK4Herd]

Prodigy message board was sued for liability with the gist they were publishers. It went to the SCOTUS. Here’s part of an article I found on it...

In the 1990s, Stratton Oakmont, the brokerage founded by Jordan Belfort—yes, the guy who Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed in Wolf of Wall Street—sued an internet service provider, Prodigy Services, for defamation. Someone on a Prodigy-run message board had accused Stratton Oakmont of fraud. The New York State Supreme Court ruled that Prodigy had acted as a publisher and thus was liable for defamation.

This case caught the attention of Wyden, then a Congressman for Oregon, who worked with California Rep. Chris Cox to include Section 230 as a protection for other internet businesses from lawsuits like Stratton Oakmont’s in their Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 was only a small portion of that broader legislation. The Communications Decency Act’s broader purpose was to slow the spread of child pornography on the web.

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision struck down most of the act the following year, ruling it that too greatly restricted free speech. But the court kept Section 230.

What Is Section 230—And Why Does Trump Want To Change It?

Section 230 created the modern internet, and the legislation is now at the center of Presiden Trump's war on social media companies.

www.forbes.com

 

[GK4Herd]

The irony here is that repealing section 230 would almost certainly destroy social media the way we know it today. It would be impossible to moderate and not worth the risk. I think these sites would go dark along with any potential platform that could be used by any side of the political spectrum.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

So they get those protections because they don’t have to censor...but if they start censoring do they lose those protections?

Sorry - I’m just now reading about some of this.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Twitter banned the Unity2020 movement. That to me was more alarming than Trump.

A Plan to Save Our Republic

#Unity2020 is a grassroots presidential campaign to restore patriotic, courageous & capable leadership to the United States.

articlesofunity.org

 

[GK4Herd]

So they get those protections because they don’t have to censor...but if they start censoring do they lose those protections?

Sorry - I’m just now reading about some of this.

I’m totally in the dark myself. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around it for a few weeks and I really don’t understand all the nuances at all. My instinct is that in order for these platforms to continue to exist, section 230 can’t be repealed. That was of course before the platforms were the breeding grounds of of what happened this week. I‘m thinking that the confusions lies in the fluidness of all the situations that affect it and the fact that there are not enough SCOTUS and high court rulings to establish precedence.

Still...the Trump administration’s fight to repeal it seems more self damaging than what it would gain by removing any perceived bias with these sites. He’d literally be jeopardizing the very platforms that saw rise to his powers.

 

[Chevy1]

As mentioned, regulators are coming hard and fast for these companies, and both sides of the aisle desire stronger regulations. Perhaps these companies hope their response will be viewed as "responsible". After all, the law makers who will be writing those regulations....it was their lives that were in real danger when the Capitol was stormed last Wednesday.

 

[herdfan429]

That’s fine if you ban trump but just apply the rules consistently. Iran’s supreme leader can post all the anti Israel stuff he wants and there’s no problem. Kathy griffin retweeted her trump severed head image but somehow that doesn’t incite violence. The issue is that from
The outside looking in the censorship deplatforming or whatever you want to call it goes one way and is inconsistent with how it’s applied.

 

[GK4Herd]

That’s fine if you ban trump but just apply the rules consistently. Iran’s supreme leader can post all the anti Israel stuff he wants and there’s no problem. Kathy griffin retweeted her trump severed head image but somehow that doesn’t incite violence. The issue is that from
The outside looking in the censorship deplatforming or whatever you want to call it goes one way and is inconsistent with how it’s applied.

I agree with this actually. I think the issue right now is that these platforms are operating devoid of any guiding principles and are reacting by steering the course of their ship to the toss of the latest tempest. Then add to that how unpredictable it is to anticipate what waves are coming. I’m beginning to believe that the overall negative with social media is starting to far outweigh its positives. We may be better off as a society without it. I know I would probably be happier to be unleashed from them.

 

[MichiganHerd]

That’s fine if you ban trump but just apply the rules consistently. Iran’s supreme leader can post all the anti Israel stuff he wants and there’s no problem. Kathy griffin retweeted her trump severed head image but somehow that doesn’t incite violence. The issue is that from
The outside looking in the censorship deplatforming or whatever you want to call it goes one way and is inconsistent with how it’s applied.

That's pretty much what I told a Facebook friend who was gloating on FB about Trump being banned from Twitter. His reply was to change the subject to let me know he was still banned from numerous bars in fayette county.

My take. Twitter can do whatever they want, but be honest with your reasons why they do what they do. Just come out and admit that you are who you are.

Besides all that, Twitter can kiss my beautiful ass.

 

[Chevy1]

That’s fine if you ban trump but just apply the rules consistently. Iran’s supreme leader can post all the anti Israel stuff he wants and there’s no problem. Kathy griffin retweeted her trump severed head image but somehow that doesn’t incite violence. The issue is that from
The outside looking in the censorship deplatforming or whatever you want to call it goes one way and is inconsistent with how it’s applied.

Fair point, and I don't disagree. IMO, the BODs of these companies - and let's be clear, these are private companies NOT public squares - are vastly more concerned with who will writing the regs that will directly impact their future profitability - perhaps even their viability.

Also, these corporations are located in the United States of America. Security concerns and violence to overthrow the govt certainly don't provide an optimal environment for business operations. Perhaps a contributing reason the Wall Street Journal demanded Trump's resignation last week?

 

[GK4Herd]

Fair point, and I don't disagree. IMO, the BODs of these companies - and let's be clear, these are private companies NOT public squares - are vastly more concerned with who will writing the regs that will directly impact their future profitability - perhaps even their viability.

Also, these corporations are located in the United States of America. Security concerns and violence to overthrow the govt certainly don't provide an optimal environment for business operations. Perhaps a contributing reason the Wall Street Journal demanded Trump's resignation last week?

This is the point. I don’t think these companies are being political as much as they are trying to find that fine line between generating maximum profit and limiting liability.

 

[SamSwimmer]

Myself & colleagues have business pages on social media & completely separate personal pages. In the type of work we do, we pretty much have to have them. Especially with government shuttering businesses & forcing people to work from home. Tech has fought to become integral (arguably necessary) in online control with the backing of govy. I know of at least four individuals who have had their business & personal pages nixed with no explanation but coincidentally were all conservatives. Not ardent Trump supporters, just staunch conservatives who only post politically to their personal pages. They work on commission, they're not crazy. They weren't posting crazy shit. All four lost their pages & had to create new pages with slightly different names & hope their old clients would find them.

This shit terrifies me. I would get it if they were posting violent or crazy shit but my hand on my parent's grave, they weren't. But now their livelihood is being effected.

 

[SamSwimmer]

This is the point. I don’t think these companies are being political as much as they are trying to find that fine line between generating maximum profit and limiting liability.

So social media caters more to the left out of pure capitalistic interests?

 

[GK4Herd]

So social media caters more to the left out of pure capitalistic interests?

No...they cater to any ideology that drives the bottom line until it places them in a position that potentially risks create liability and existential issues. Some of the looniest right wing people I know post unfettered on Facebook and the news feed algorithms constantly supply them with information that sates their need for self validating information. Same thing for loony lefters. No way that they do that if they are trying to censor right leaning posters. If anything they are promoting their addiction to their sites.

 

[SamSwimmer]

No...they cater to any ideology that drives the bottom line until it places them in a position that potential risks create liability and existential issues. Some of the looniest right wing people I know post unfettered on Facebook and the news feed algorithms constantly supply them with information that sates their need for self validating information. Same thing for loony lefters. No way that they do that if they are trying to censor right leaning posters. If anything they are promoting their addiction to their sites.

Oh, come on. "No way"?!

 

[herdfan429]

The second Facebook Twitter etc started fact checking they became publishers IMO. This goes back to the gay wedding cake. Either they should be forced to bake it or leave content alone in this aspect or they don’t. There is no either or. It’s either allow it or don’t.

 

[ohio herd]

Are they platforms or publishers?

View embedded media

in my view they are platforms

 

[ohio herd]

No...they cater to any ideology that drives the bottom line until it places them in a position that potentially risks create liability and existential issues. Some of the looniest right wing people I know post unfettered on Facebook and the news feed algorithms constantly supply them with information that sates their need for self validating information. Same thing for loony lefters. No way that they do that if they are trying to censor right leaning posters. If anything they are promoting their addiction to their sites.

have you or any of your liberal buddies ever been Fact Checked? Have you or any of your liberal friends ever been to Face Book jail?

 

[ohio herd]

I have no clue what to do about this issue. Been reading a bit from some voices I like, and even then there doesn't seem to be a coherent answer.

Yes, Twitter/Facebook/Google/Apple/Amazon are private companies. But if they keep Gab/Parler off of their app stores/search engines/servers, then how can anyone "compete?"

Is social media the modern day town square? The founders clearly wanted freedom of speech at the town square, where the government was in charge of the town square. What happens when the town square is now online?

I'm wary of government getting too involved, but also wary of giving all of this power to big tech. When you can silence the king, you are the king.

I don't know what to think about all this.

they are in a Monopoly position and need to be held accountable, Private company or not. Try navigating todays world without access and see how challenging it would be. So what do we do if suddenly AEP decides to shut off the power of everyone who has a political view different than the prevailing view in the liberal echo chamber? I get it, probably not going to happen, but what if. Well, they are regulated someone might respond and maybe it is time to regulate these tech companies. I will say it is cute how only liberals seem to think this is a good thing. Just be careful what you cheer for today cause Orwell 1984 is knocking at the door.

 

[big_country90]

in my view they are platforms

The second they decide to remove something from their site, they become a publisher.

 

[herdfan06]

they are in a Monopoly position and need to be held accountable, Private company or not. Try navigating todays world without access and see how challenging it would be. So what do we do if suddenly AEP decides to shut off the power of everyone who has a political view different than the prevailing view in the liberal echo chamber? I get it, probably not going to happen, but what if. Well, they are regulated someone might respond and maybe it is time to regulate these tech companies. I will say it is cute how only liberals seem to think this is a good thing. Just be careful what you cheer for today cause Orwell 1984 is knocking at the door.

Are you able to get power from another provider if AEP turns your power off?

 

[herdfan429]

Are you able to get power from another provider if AEP turns your power off?

Is aep preventing all access to duke energy? Like Amazon google and apple have basically done with parler

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Balajis is right about a lot of things. Bitcoin and Covid he was on EARLY.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

But if they keep Gab/Parler off of their app stores/search engines/servers, then how can anyone "compete?"

If it is truly because Parler refuses to moderate in a way that is acceptable under 230 standards, then good. Fvck 'em.

I have been telling everyone that the Capitol cop getting killed changed the game. 230 doesn't protect when federal crimes are committed (like CP, I don't think anyone ever considered Wednesday, but here we are). Criminally, little risk. But civil suits? Katy bar the door, here it comes.

Choose to not moderate and allow CP? You get in trouble. Choose to not moderate and let people say they are going to overthrow the government, hang politicians, etc and then something happens? You get in trouble.

I can't blame Apple and Google/Android. It's not even the money....it is the precedent.

and there's selective enforcement of terms of service.

My latest FB jail term came for posting "white trash". Is that a conservative thing to say?

I think they are feeding shit into the algorithms to see what sticks. 99.9% of people getting a banhammer, they are nobodies. No important executive is saying "ban them".

Wouldn’t that pretty much guarantee that any voice that can be construed as the least bit inflammatory be removed?

Yes. No 230, this board shuts down immediately. No comments on news articles. NOTHING.

So they get those protections because they don’t have to censor...but if they start censoring do they lose those protections?

Censor and moderate are two totally different things. They were always supposed to moderate. Twitter had some high-minded ideal that good or bad, national leaders should be able to communicate electronically to their people. Which I totally get, but TOS should apply to everyone. There is also an argument for documenting the evil posted by bad leaders. Which kind of makes me think these tech billionaires think their creations are more important than what they really are.

I think the issue right now is that these platforms are operating devoid of any guiding principles and are reacting by steering the course of their ship to the toss of the latest tempest.

How much money has FB and Twitter made off Trump? Biggest driver of traffic EVER. They were willing to ride the tiger until it remembered it is a tiger.

Their only true guiding principle is MONEY. At the end of the day, it's greed.

If anything they are promoting their addiction to their sites.

No shit.

Anyone remember the good old days when Facebook news feed was simply chronological?

 

[-CarlHungus-]

@GK4Herd
@Raoul Duke MU

UChicago law professor weighs in. Painting with a broad brush here, but typically UChicago slants more free speech absolutists than others FWIW (at least as it relates to campus discourse).

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Is PornHub stifling our sexuality because unverified members can no longer upload content? NO. They got caught not moderating CP. Why? Because PH is too big to moderate....or because they did really not try to moderate.

* Cue 06 saying I was smart to VPN my p0rn.

Folks, Facebook and Twitter are too big to moderate. Hence, shitty algorithms that catch the wrong flies in the web. Parler, them sons of bitches ain't even trying lol.

 

[herdfan429]

If it is truly because Parler refuses to moderate in a way that is acceptable under 230 standards, then good. Fvck 'em.

I have been telling everyone that the Capitol cop getting killed changed the game. 230 doesn't protect when federal crimes are committed (like CP, I don't think anyone ever considered Wednesday, but here we are). Criminally, little risk. But civil suits? Katy bar the door, here it comes.

Choose to not moderate and allow CP? You get in trouble. Choose to not moderate and let people say they are going to overthrow the government, hang politicians, etc and then something happens? You get in trouble.

I can't blame Apple and Google/Android. It's not even the money....it is the precedent.



My latest FB jail term came for posting "white trash". Is that a conservative thing to say?

I think they are feeding shit into the algorithms to see what sticks. 99.9% of people getting a banhammer, they are nobodies. No important executive is saying "ban them".



Yes. No 230, this board shuts down immediately. No comments on news articles. NOTHING.



Censor and moderate are two totally different things. They were always supposed to moderate. Twitter had some high-minded ideal that good or bad, national leaders should be able to communicate electronically to their people. Which I totally get, but TOS should apply to everyone. There is also an argument for documenting the evil posted by bad leaders. Which kind of makes me think these tech billionaires think their creations are more important than what they really are.



How much money has FB and Twitter made off Trump? Biggest driver of traffic EVER. They were willing to ride the tiger until it remembered it is a tiger.

Their only true guiding principle is MONEY. At the end of the day, it's greed.



No shit.

Anyone remember the good old days when Facebook news feed was simply chronological?

So the hang pence hast tag that was up all day the other is fine as long as nothing happens?

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

@GK4Herd
@Raoul Duke MU

UChicago law professor weighs in. Painting with a broad brush here, but typically UChicago slants more free speech absolutists than others FWIW (at least as it relates to campus discourse).

View embedded media

Today almost all of the important mass public speech forums are privately owned.

I am pretty sure that has always been the case if we think of mass public speech as the only way to reach more than dozens at a time. Printing presses, news papers, radio and TV...all privately owned.

A lot of people have argued that Trump engaged in incitement. But if so, it’s not incitement in the way the First A cases understand it (at least not is online speech—the rally on Jan 6 may be a different matter).

No shit, from a very specific view of his tweets as individual tweets (although I have seen many that would have got you or I put in Twitter Jail). He got the ban hammer for a collective of work.

But given the nature of that speech on Wednesday, and fvcking Giuliani too, can one reasonably assume there is a liability danger that is he going to slip up and Tweet "attack" or such? Absolutely. You cross a certain line in one sphere, other spheres will rightfully not want you. If you owned Twitter, would you want a known CP publisher on your site, even if he only posted photos of puppies and kittens?

The result is that even those who might otherwise criticize the rigid public/private distinction in First A law—and there is a LOT to criticize—embrace it because it allows an exit ramp from the constitutional straitjacket.

Broad distinctions are important for small reasons. Do you want to live in a world where a company has to hire the Grand Dragon of the KKK if he is otherwise qualified?

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

So the hang pence hast tag that was up all day the other is fine as long as nothing happens?

Jesus Christ. Don't be a dumbass.* The tag was to draw attention to a newsworthy event. Which, you know, an angry mob inside the Capitol chanting "hang the VEEP" is.

If I say something about Iran and #iran, does it mean I support Iran? Seriously, that's a stupid thing for you to say.

* Pro tip: repeating the stupid claims of the head of Parler will usually make you look like a dumbass.

 

[i am herdman]

were you for Standard Oil being broken up and others? These are the modern day giants. Why do you think they are doing this(at least part of it, a big part of it?).

 

[-CarlHungus-]

were you for Standard Oil being broken up and others? These are the modern day giants. Why do you think they are doing this(at least part of it, a big part of it?).

She’s arguing it’s akin to the railroads ...

 

[i am herdman]

She’s arguing it’s akin to the railroads ...

View embedded media

what would Teddy Roosevelt had done?

Look, I am business first guy but these giants are out of control.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

what would Teddy Roosevelt had done?

Look, I am business first guy but these giants are out of control.

I don’t know. It’s a problem without a good solution that I see.

Ive become more attuned to the fragility and large structural asymmetries of centralization (either via govt or something like Amazon web services or google).