‘Stop Social Media Censorship Act’ Introduced To Halt Google, Twitter, Facebook Censorship

Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#1
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/...alt-google-twitter-facebook-censorship/79414/

“Citing this act as the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act”; providing that the owner or operator of a social media website is subject to a private right of action by a social media website user in this state under certain conditions; prohibiting a social media website from using hate speech as a defense; authorizing the Attorney General to bring an action on behalf of a social media website user, etc.”
As mentioned, this would only apply to social media services that have a registered userbase of more than 75 million, so this would readily include places like Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

It would mean that the aforementioned websites could not delete your content or censor your profile based on “hate speech” or other nebulous reasons. Doing so would incur a $75,000 penalty per violation and have their attorney fees paid by the social media platform. While that may not seem like much, it quickly starts racking up if there are systematic bans of certain individuals based on their political views, as discussed by Tim Pool during his visit to the Joe Rogan podcast while discussing the issue of censorship with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on March 5th, 2019.
The bill also indicates that all costs to the social media platform holder can be mitigated by restoring the user’s account or the posts that were wrongly deleted, banned, removed, or censored.

If you read through the text of bill 1722, however, it does not advocate for all forms of speech to be allowed on social media platforms.

Posts that call for immediate acts of violence, or are obscene or pornographic in nature, were removed via a court order, entices criminal conduct, involves minors bullying minors, comes from false impersonation or an inauthentic source, or is the result of an operational error will indemnify the platform holder of responsibility.

Additionally, this act will only be enforced for those who are 18 years of age or older.

The act will go into effect July 1st, 2019 if it manages to get voted through in time.
Without having read the actual bill itself (I'm sure it is poisoned somehow), the idea that social media organizations with more than 75 million users can not longer use the nebulous "hate speech" defense is greatly appealing to me.
 
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
#2
I don't see this passing at all and even if it did I don't think it would hold up in court. The government can't force companies to host what they consider to be hate speech on their sites. Companies are allowed to have their own sets of terms and conditions and if users violate those T&Cs then that is on the user not the company.


This is just an attempt by the Republicans to stir up their base and make it sound like they are trying to do stuff. But the bill was introduced months ago and as far as I can tell nothing has come of it since.
 
Last edited:
Jul 19, 2018
871
520
230
#3
Just like the guy above. I don’t have faith in them passing this. Big tech gives money to both parties. Google loves sponsoring things like CPAC so they can steer the GOP. However they absolutely can, and should regulate social media. It is the modern town square. Jack Dorsey has even promoted Twitter as such. They should be governed by the first amendment.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,430
1,469
340
Moore Park Beach
#4
I don't see this passing at all and even if it did I don't think it would hold up in court. The government can't force companies to host what they consider to be hate speech on their sites. Companies are allowed to have their own sets of terms and conditions and if users violate those T&Cs then that is on the user not the company.
I agree it is unlikely to pass but you are clearly wrong when you say the government can't force companies.

A simple counter example to why that is not true: Assume a company decides that they consider any speech from a Black person being hate speech and thus all Black people are banned from their platform.
I pretty much ascertain that the government DO and in fact WILL force that company to not enforce that "hate speech" policy.

Ergo: the government very much can and very much will force companies in these situations. Your conclusion is thus proven to be invalid.
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2018
1,942
2,008
240
#5
I dont think it can pass (big tech money, democrat votes) outside of executive action the gop would be smart to think about this since it can be argued the huge online push helped calling out the media bias and helped get trump elected, which is now the online base that gets banned in hopes (of tech giants) that history wont repeat itself all because it worked for trump, basically ever since trump got elected his online base had a crosshair on their backs concerning social media.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
2,464
2,837
230
#6
I don't see this passing at all and even if it did I don't think it would hold up in court. The government can't force companies to host what they consider to be hate speech on their sites. Companies are allowed to have their own sets of terms and conditions and if users violate those T&Cs then that is on the user not the company.


This is just an attempt by the Republicans to stir up their base and make it sound like they are trying to do stuff. But the bill was introduced months ago and as far as I can tell nothing has come of it since.
The government can absolutely do this
 
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
#7
The government can absolutely do this
I guess we will find out, but I highly doubt the thing even passes and if it did it would be taken to court so it wouldn't even take effect for quite awhile. There is far too much money and PR involved. No company wants to be forced to host hate speech or other negative material. It does far too much harm to their business and its image.


Thats not even mentioning the blowback that anyone who votes yes for this would get from the public. The negative publicity would be staggering. The media would publicly bury them for supporting hate speech. No politician in their right mind is gonna take that kind of bullet just so some trolls on social media can be offensive without having to worry about punishment. And thats even if they had the votes in order to pass it through the house in the first place. Which they don't.


This is just a show for the base. Its a "See! We are trying but the evil *insert party here* is stopping us!" kind of bill. These are introduced all the time by both sides and very rarely do they ever get any real traction let alone pass.
 
Last edited:
Jan 8, 2018
669
758
210
#8
I don't see this passing at all and even if it did I don't think it would hold up in court. The government can't force companies to host what they consider to be hate speech on their sites. Companies are allowed to have their own sets of terms and conditions and if users violate those T&Cs then that is on the user not the company.


This is just an attempt by the Republicans to stir up their base and make it sound like they are trying to do stuff. But the bill was introduced months ago and as far as I can tell nothing has come of it since.
Not trying to stir up shit but i think we all know where you stand on censorship when it comes to social media so you are quite biased in this reasoning. You think anyone who has a different view from your own views is a nazi supporting racist bigot. You are the same person that supports the unwashed masses having a witch hunt and then convicting them in the court of public opinion via social media and putting their lives in danger whether they are guilty or not. Why are you suddenly opposed to and in support of this bill not passing or trotting out that it is a dog and pony show? I bet if your sjw brethren got hit with the censorship hammer you would be clamoring for this bill.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#10
Even if you doubt NI’s intent, he’s brought up several good points. It does represent something of a free speech issue, and he’s right, it will be challenged (I think we’re looking at a SCOTUS issue here). I do think social media’s censorship of political parties is something that NEEDS to be addressed, legally, and I think the requirement of having 75 million users is a decent enough threshold for declaring these sites to be “public squares” that defend speech rather than punish it.
 
Likes: LMJ
Jan 8, 2018
669
758
210
#11
Even if you doubt NI’s intent, he’s brought up several good points. It does represent something of a free speech issue, and he’s right, it will be challenged (I think we’re looking at a SCOTUS issue here). I do think social media’s censorship of political parties is something that NEEDS to be addressed, legally, and I think the requirement of having 75 million users is a decent enough threshold for declaring these sites to be “public squares” that defend speech rather than punish it.
The only thing he said that is true is that it would be challenged in court, otherwise he is downplaying the need for it and insinuating that it is a dog and pony show by the Republicans. The Democrats should be all for this bill but they won't because they are the ones who are orchestrating the deplatforming of anyone who is not on board with their slimy underhanded politics and are using social media as a weapon against conservatives or anyone not in lockstep with insane extreme left views these days.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
2,464
2,837
230
#12
I guess we will find out, but I highly doubt the thing even passes and if it did it would be taken to court so it wouldn't even take effect for quite awhile. There is far too much money and PR involved. No company wants to be forced to host hate speech or other negative material. It does far too much harm to their business and its image.


Thats not even mentioning the blowback that anyone who votes yes for this would get from the public. The negative publicity would be staggering. The media would publicly bury them for supporting hate speech. No politician in their right mind is gonna take that kind of bullet just so some trolls on social media can be offensive without having to worry about punishment. And thats even if they had the votes in order to pass it through the house in the first place. Which they don't.


This is just a show for the base. Its a "See! We are trying but the evil *insert party here* is stopping us!" kind of bill. These are introduced all the time by both sides and very rarely do they ever get any real traction let alone pass.
This idea that tech companies won't stand to host offensive content on their platforms is silly. They already do.
Nothing is actually deleted.

NI would have a point if you think "conservative = nazi", but that isn't what is being argued. Though that will be the argument the social media corporations and leftists politicians will make. The question is can the government establish regulations for how a company treats their customers, and they absolutely fucking can.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#13
The only thing he said that is true is that it would be challenged in court, otherwise he is downplaying the need for it and insinuating that it is a dog and pony show by the Republicans. The Democrats should be all for this bill but they won't because they are the ones who are orchestrating the deplatforming of anyone who is not on board with their slimy underhanded politics and are using social media as a weapon against conservatives or anyone not in lockstep with insane extreme left views these days.
I'm very interested in what happens with this bill. If the Democrats start arguing that it is a violation of the First Amendment, I'm going to laugh myself into the hospital. But I'm guessing they will instead argue against the First Amendment, going after "hate speech" as if hate speech were the greatest threat to democracy we've ever known.

I've always been a believer that if you just let someone with a dumb opinion talk, they'll change their own mind. These opinions are usually not well thought through and instead rely almost exclusively on various platitudes they've picked up somewhere. Platitudes have a really nasty habit of breaking down under scrutiny, so the more people have to defend these views, the more it breaks down, and the more they have to think about their position - usually resulting in a much more reasonable and considered position.

(Note: This does not work on the ideologically purists. They get stuck in an infinite loop where they have a platitude for every conceivable response, going in circles as every platitude begs a question that has another platitude. Round and round they go. Infinite loop.)

I say, let the Democrats get up there and denounce this bill to the high heavens. Let's have that discussion on "hate speech". I don't think it will do must to dissuade the too far gone, but I don't think the vast majority of America is too far gone. At least I hope they aren't. They, at least, will realize how stupid all this is.
 
Likes: Ryujin

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
638
448
845
Ottawa, Canada
#14
I agree it is unlikely to pass but you are clearly wrong when you say the government can't force companies.

A simple counter example to why that is not true: Assume a company decides that they consider any speech from a Black person being hate speech and thus all Black people are banned from their platform.
I pretty much ascertain that the government DO and in fact WILL force that company to not enforce that "hate speech" policy.

Ergo: the government very much can and very much will force companies in these situations. Your conclusion is thus proven to be invalid.
That's not a good argument. The government would be stepping in for that case because it would be a violation of civil rights that transcends the nature of the platform (that is, doesn't matter whether it's public or private). You have the right to be treated equally regardless of your skin; you don't have the right to force a private outlet to host neo-Nazis.
 
Jul 19, 2018
871
520
230
#18
I guess we will find out, but I highly doubt the thing even passes and if it did it would be taken to court so it wouldn't even take effect for quite awhile. There is far too much money and PR involved. No company wants to be forced to host hate speech or other negative material. It does far too much harm to their business and its image.


Thats not even mentioning the blowback that anyone who votes yes for this would get from the public. The negative publicity would be staggering. The media would publicly bury them for supporting hate speech. No politician in their right mind is gonna take that kind of bullet just so some trolls on social media can be offensive without having to worry about punishment. And thats even if they had the votes in order to pass it through the house in the first place. Which they don't.


This is just a show for the base. Its a "See! We are trying but the evil *insert party here* is stopping us!" kind of bill. These are introduced all the time by both sides and very rarely do they ever get any real traction let alone pass.
Just you and your intersectional crowd will be crying. All the people banned from Twitter, and all the people forced to censor themselves so they don’t get banned will be happy about it. Not to mention the free speech classical shitlibs. And almost everyone agrees it probably will not pass. I don’t know why you keep bringing that up.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,652
2,219
470
Brampton, Ontario
#20
Wasn't there a leaked Google Presentation where the CEO was plotting against Trump?

Trying to pass free speech laws on social media is just a band-aid for what's eventually going to come. Liberals will continue to have a strangle hold on the media and continue to push "orange man bad". Or when Trump's 4 ~ 8 years is over, we'll just see "Conservatives are Nazis" being pushed.

I hope we all learn an important lesson on why some form of nationalism is necessary for a country's survival. When multi-million dollar companies have no allegiance to the country they originate from, they'll go rogue and start working against its own citizens.
 
Last edited:
Likes: TheGreatYosh
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#22
No, I'm absolutely not. Sqorin is trying to argue that a private site is committing a heinous crime, on par with racial discrimination, by deciding the values it promotes. Neo-Nazis are not a protected class in society; ethnicity is.
Twitter has 326 million monthly users. How many people does it need before it stops being a private site and starts being a public one?
 
Likes: TheGreatYosh

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
638
448
845
Ottawa, Canada
#23
Twitter has 326 million monthly users. How many people does it need before it stops being a private site and starts being a public one?
Most of those users are outside of the US, you do know that, right? Twitter had about 54 million American users as of 2017.

And if you believe it's a public space, then push for legislation that treats social networks as public spaces (and can survive a constitutional challenge). Don't argue for a violation of the Constitution just so that you can force others to carry your ideology.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#25
Most of those users are outside of the US, you do know that, right? Twitter had about 54 million American users as of 2017.
How does that change anything? Does 54 million Americans not meet your threshold for public space?

And if you believe it's a public space, then push for legislation that treats social networks as public spaces (and can survive a constitutional challenge).
That's literally what this law is doing.

Don't argue for a violation of the Constitution just so that you can force others to carry your ideology.
Twitter is a corporation, not a person. It doesn't have rights... or wouldn't except that the Supreme Court has recognized personhood for corporations (one of the stupidest decisions of all time, made worse by the insanely inept Citizens United ruling). But while the Constitution guarantees the protection of rights given by God in humans, the rights of corporations are bestowed by the government, and not equally. For instance, corporations can't take the Fifth. I'm not sure if a discussion on corporate personhood is what is called for here, since there's SCOTUS precedent for corporations not being able to impede free speech in "public squares".

And, I should point out that wanting to silence people for "hate speech" is YOUR ideology, so don't go around pretending like you are doing anything different.
 
Dec 15, 2011
2,164
3,474
535
#26
You can't grandstand about equality and then attempt to reason why that should exclude certain groups of people - driven by a personal and subjective criteria.
Squirming around such an obvious fallacy by answering questions with more questions isn't very effective at distracting from said obvious fallacy.

You either believe in equality or you don't. The rhetoric used shows that you don't.
 
Jun 12, 2018
421
667
210
#27
Unfortunately I don't see this going anywhere and I don't agree with forcing a private company that is used worldwide to host hate speech as hate speech is illegal in some countries. Although how #LearnToCode qualifies as hate speech but calling for throwing minors into a wood chipper doesn't is quite baffling.

I think a better approach would be to make political speech and ideology protected speech.
 
Dec 18, 2018
147
150
160
#29
Twitter and other gigantic social media platforms have become essentially public utilities and need to be regulated as such.

It's silly to say they can't censor speech, because they already do - but they only censor speech that might hurt a Democrat's chances of election or re-election.

The internet has replaced the land-line phone networks as the primary means of public communication, so banning someone from the internet is now a much more serious matter, since the offender is basically "un-personed" and cut off from human society. It's as if in the 1980s, you were talking on the phone with a friend about how you think affirmative action is stupid - and then AT&T suddenly cancels your phone service.

And it's not only speech. Some banks have started cancelling people's bank accounts due to crimethink against the Left. Some kind of stand should be taken soon.

How are conservative candidates for public office supposed to win, if they can't raise money via Patreon or GoFundMe, can't communicate via Twitter, Facebook or Youtube, their name never comes up in a Google search, etc? (I guess the answer is: They aren't supposed to win, silly! My mistake)
 
Likes: Yakuzakazuya
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#31
True. Make it a protected class then like race, orientation, religion etc. Private businesses in the U.S. are NOT allowed to discriminate against protected classes.
There’s no reason to. Again, all speech is protected. Saying some speech is more protected is a recipe for disaster for, like, a bajillion reasons - the primary of which is that it would change our definition of what speech is protected to a much narrower subset of speech, effectively deleting the protection of the othe speech. Like for instance, if someone said something bad due to their Muslim beliefs, is that regular protected speech or protected protected speech? What if they said something without being Muslim?

The fact is, our laws and philosophy don’t move at the speed of technology. Something like the internet was literally inconceivable when these first rules were being drafted. The ideas behind the rules are sound - brilliant even - but we are struggling with the implementation because we don’t have 200 years of Supreme Court first amendment rulings. on the internet to fall back on. They’re coming, and soon, and I’m 100% confident that this “it’s a private company” bullshit won’t fly, just like it didn’t fly the last time. But somebody has to start the legal process to get these precedents set. They don’t just appear. There has to be a challenge, appeals, and so on.

And that[s what this law is going to do. It’s going to get the ball. rolling so we get this precedent, so we don’t have to assume, and so there’s no confusion about where speech is allowed to happen on a service with 300 million users. I hope this law passes. I hope it is challenged. I hope it makes it to the Supreme Court. Because we obviously need that given how some people still think that free speech has a loop hole in private business.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
638
448
845
Ottawa, Canada
#32
How does that change anything? Does 54 million Americans not meet your threshold for public space?
You purposefully misrepresented Twitter's scale, for starters. And I suspect that the law could only be enforced based on the US user volume, which would put Twitter under the limit.

Also, this raises all kinds of legal questions. What kind of features does an internet company need to have for their size to make them into public spaces? And are you prepared to create a two-tier system where smaller internet companies are free to decide what they host, but larger ones are not? Are you ready for social networks that arbitrarily cap their user bases so that they don't have to let in bigots and expose their users to potential harassment?


That's literally what this law is doing.
Only it isn't. It doesn't formally declare social networks to be public spaces; it simply tries to dictate what those networks must carry. This is something you can't accomplish in a state legislature. It has to be federal, and it has to survive a constitutional challenge, because you'd be altering the definition of free speech.


Twitter is a corporation, not a person. It doesn't have rights... or wouldn't except that the Supreme Court has recognized personhood for corporations (one of the stupidest decisions of all time, made worse by the insanely inept Citizens United ruling). But while the Constitution guarantees the protection of rights given by God in humans, the rights of corporations are bestowed by the government, and not equally. For instance, corporations can't take the Fifth. I'm not sure if a discussion on corporate personhood is what is called for here, since there's SCOTUS precedent for corporations not being able to impede free speech in "public squares".

And, I should point out that wanting to silence people for "hate speech" is YOUR ideology, so don't go around pretending like you are doing anything different.
You do realize this is a fundamentally flawed argument, right? Newspapers are companies. TV networks are companies. Websites are companies. If we pretend they don't have free speech rights, the US government can legally compel any outlet with editorial oversight to carry content against their will. That's a dark path that we should never explore.

I think non-violent hate speech is legal on a basic level, by the way -- I just don't believe companies should be forced to give it a platform, like you do.
 
Jun 12, 2018
421
667
210
#33
There’s no reason to. Again, all speech is protected. Saying some speech is more protected is a recipe for disaster for, like, a bajillion reasons - the primary of which is that it would change our definition of what speech is protected to a much narrower subset of speech, effectively deleting the protection of the othe speech. Like for instance, if someone said something bad due to their Muslim beliefs, is that regular protected speech or protected protected speech? What if they said something without being Muslim?

The fact is, our laws and philosophy don’t move at the speed of technology. Something like the internet was literally inconceivable when these first rules were being drafted. The ideas behind the rules are sound - brilliant even - but we are struggling with the implementation because we don’t have 200 years of Supreme Court first amendment rulings. on the internet to fall back on. They’re coming, and soon, and I’m 100% confident that this “it’s a private company” bullshit won’t fly, just like it didn’t fly the last time. But somebody has to start the legal process to get these precedents set. They don’t just appear. There has to be a challenge, appeals, and so on.

And that[s what this law is going to do. It’s going to get the ball. rolling so we get this precedent, so we don’t have to assume, and so there’s no confusion about where speech is allowed to happen on a service with 300 million users. I hope this law passes. I hope it is challenged. I hope it makes it to the Supreme Court. Because we obviously need that given how some people still think that free speech has a loop hole in private business.
If twitter et al can be declared a public space you are correct, but currently as a private company they can pick and chose what speech they want to allow as long as that speech isn't illegal.

What they CAN NOT do currently is deny service to protected classes.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am appalled by these giant tech companies obvious and extreme bias in taking away the voices of opinions they disagree with, I'm just not convinced this proposal is going to be successful.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#34
You purposefully misrepresented Twitter's scale, for starters.
I didn't. I think Twitter deserves to honor the speech of international users as well, such as people using Twitter to share their opinions on Brexit. You don't seem to think they deserve the same protections, but even if we allowed for that bit of cruelty, there's still 54 million Americans that more than justify Twitter as a site for public discourse.

Also, this raises all kinds of legal questions. What kind of features does an internet company need to have for their size to make them into public spaces?
That is a good question and I think it is one we're going to see be answered through this legislation. I'd set the bar relatively low, like 100,000 users, because I think it stops representing one community and starts becoming a community made up of smaller communities at that point. That said, I'm happy enough with the proposed 75 million users as it means the worst offenders doing the most damage to public discourse would be covered.

And are you prepared to create a two-tier system where smaller internet companies are free to decide what they host, but larger ones are not?
You're talking to the wrong guy on that one. I think smaller companies should defer to free speech as well. Like I've said before, I think that if you benefit from the protection of free speech, you must necessarily extend that protection to others. You don't get to just go, "all for me, none for thee" when it comes to protection.

Are you ready for social networks that arbitrarily cap their user bases so that they don't have to let in bigots and expose their users to potential harassment?
If that's what it comes down to, I'm honestly okay with that. They'd be using a loophole as a way to skirt around the law, and in doing so will limited their audience and the amount of money they can make. If that's a trade off they are willing to make, I'm willing to let them.

Only it isn't. It doesn't formally declare social networks to be public spaces; it simply tries to dictate what those networks must carry. This is something you can't accomplish in a state legislature. It has to be federal, and it has to survive a constitutional challenge, because you'd be altering the definition of free speech.
I see this law as the beginning of the discussion, not the end of it. There's no way it won't be challenged and no way the public square discussion won't happen. It will be the foundation of whatever legal case happens, and there's a major, relevant SCOTUS case to rely on for precedent. The law may start with going "Yo dawg, hate speech is bullshit" but it is going to end up with "being a private company does not give you the right to dictate the public discourse".


You do realize this is a fundamentally flawed argument, right? Newspapers are companies. TV networks are companies. Websites are companies. If we pretend they don't have free speech rights, the US government can legally compel any outlet with editorial oversight to carry content against their will. That's a dark path that we should never explore.
They are publishers, Twitter and Facebook are not. They are intermediaries, like phone lines. There's some confusion there (I argue that a publisher must be aware of what it publishes, so that it can be held liable for libel/slander, where they are not and are not), and maybe if Twitter and Facebook had been more responsible in their behavior, they could've made an argument for being a publisher. But it is obvious that Twitter and Facebook are using their editorial control to silence voices, control political discourse, and influence public elections through deception, fraud, and malfeasance. They allow everybody to publish, but punish them after they have said something wrong. At that point, they are silencing people rather than deciding what to publish.

I think non-violent hate speech is legal on a basic level, by the way -- I just don't believe companies should be forced to give it a platform, like you do.
I think free speech is one of the most important rights we have as humans, and I think our entire political system comes crumbling down when voices can't be heard, when knowledge can not be shared, and when dishonesty is being covered up. Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook are responsible all these things and our society will literally die if we continue along this path. The freedom of speech is our most fundamental right because it is the most necessary one.
 
Likes: TheGreatYosh

old

Member
May 11, 2013
4,939
156
365
#35
Those sites should mockingly paraphrase the Hobby Lobby case and claim their “religious belief” to not host hateful content supersedes the user’s rights to post hateful content.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#36
If twitter et al can be declared a public space you are correct, but currently as a private company they can pick and chose what speech they want to allow as long as that speech isn't illegal.
Like I said in my previous post, that's if they are acting as a publisher, not as an intermediary. Think of it like phone lines, if AT&T decided to cut your phones off if they found out you were voting Republican. There's no way that is okay. A publisher decides what to publish before it is published, an intermediary publishes everything equally. Frankly, I'm amazed that we don't have net neutrality for exactly this same reason, but the people manipulating public discourse has figured out how to stuff comments sections with bots.

What they CAN NOT do currently is deny service to protected classes.
I'm against protected classes as well, since they are a violation of the freedoms I hold so dear. It's like the bakery with the gay wedding cake. There's too many not-so-fringe cases where these protections ultimately hurt the ideas they are trying to protect.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am appalled by these giant tech companies obvious and extreme bias in taking away the voices of opinions they disagree with, I'm just not convinced this proposal is going to be successful.
I'm not convinced either, because it only takes ten seconds reading /r/politics or ResetEra to realize that people are so far gone down the ideological rabbit hole that reason no longer has a place in their lives. They would be against something like this because they don't want the other guys to win, even if it would ultimately protect them. I'm actually a little disappointed that Trump hasn't been a worse president because I feel like a little oppression would make them regain a healthy appreciation of their rights (and by that virtue, the rights of others). Free speech used to be a left wing issue.

But I digress. I think our government is corrupt, I think the corporations are even more corrupt (and controlling the government), and I think the judicial system is far too political to make any lasting change (people are still trying to get Roe v Wade overturned because they think it was politically motivated rather than a neutral reading of the laws and legislation). I don't have much hope and I think we're pretty much at the end of the US' glory days. We'll be stumbling into authoritarianism soon enough, but I think our freedom of speech is the one thing that can help us stop it - or help us when we do. We've flirted with it in the past and always, always, always it was free speech which brought us back from the brink. So, I'd like to protect it.
 
Jul 19, 2018
871
520
230
#38
Like I said in my previous post, that's if they are acting as a publisher, not as an intermediary. Think of it like phone lines, if AT&T decided to cut your phones off if they found out you were voting Republican. There's no way that is okay. A publisher decides what to publish before it is published, an intermediary publishes everything equally. Frankly, I'm amazed that we don't have net neutrality for exactly this same reason, but the people manipulating public discourse has figured out how to stuff comments sections with bots.
You’re right. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are getting the protections of an intermediary, but acting like a publisher.
 
Apr 15, 2018
2,464
2,837
230
#40
I think this needs to be said. Twitter (and this is standard for pretty much every social media website) already hosts "hateful" content on their database. They don't actually delete anything. Very few companies do. When you are blocked, suspended or banned from Twitter, you content doesn't magically cease to exist until you return. It just becomes unavailable to view on the live network.

I'm not sure if being are truly ignorant or being disingenuous when they act like Twitter "can't" host this, or are being forced to do something they already do?

Edit: Also 100% called it that people oppoising this would leap to calling everything and anything Nazism.
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2018
33
1
80
#43
How do "private platforms" have immutiny from liability laws?
In a defaming scenerio, if the owner of said platform buries all/most content defending my name and leaves the rest, I can't take action against them?
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
1,997
573
360
#44
Hahaha, so much for the free market. Republican crybabies.
Yeah, Liz. Go start your own Facebook, crybaby.

Facebook Removes Elizabeth Warren Ads, Then Restores Them After Outcry

In a curious sequence of events Monday that has gained the attention of some folks online, Facebook temporarily pulled some ads placed by Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA) on Friday calling for the breakup of tech giants, including Facebook, which has acquired Instagram and WhatsApp.

After scrutiny, particularly by Politico, Facebook restored the Warren ads Monday and issued a statement saying the ads violated their advertising policies and they were only restoring them for the sake of encouraging "robust debate."

"Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and Google," read Warren's temporarily pulled campaign ads. "We all use them. But in their rise to power, they’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor."

The ads promoted the progressive senator's new plan announced in a Team Warren blog post Friday which declares: "It's time to breakup Amazon, Google, and Facebook." In an example of "Using Mergers to Limit Competition," Warren writes, "Facebook has purchased potential competitors Instagram and WhatsApp." She also specifically calls out Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg:

Weak antitrust enforcement has led to a dramatic reduction in competition and innovation in the tech sector. Venture capitalists are now hesitant to fund new startups to compete with these big tech companies because it’s so easy for the big companies to either snap up growing competitors or drive them out of business. The number of tech startups has slumped, there are fewer high-growth young firms typical of the tech industry, and first financing rounds for tech startups have declined 22% since 2012.

With fewer competitors entering the market, the big tech companies do not have to compete as aggressively in key areas like protecting our privacy. And some of these companies have grown so powerful that they can bully cities and states into showering them with massive taxpayer handouts in exchange for doing business, and can act — in the words of Mark Zuckerberg — “more like a government than a traditional company.”

But, Politico notes, the ads were soon scrubbed and replaced with a message: "This ad was taken down because it goes against Facebook's advertising policies."

After Politico reported the "takedown" on Monday, Facebook quickly reversed course, restoring the ads. A spokesperson told the outlet the only reason the ads were removed is because they violated the platform's policies by using their corporate logo.



"We removed the ads because they violated our policies against use of our corporate logo," the spokesperson told Politico. "In the interest of allowing robust debate, we are restoring the ads.”

Politico notes that over a dozen other ads by Warren about her "big tech breakup" proposal weren't pulled.

Facebook "Brand Usage in Ads" policy states: "Don’t use the Facebook corporate logo in an ad. The logo is reserved for corporate use." Here's the full policy statement:

Ads linking to Facebook or Instagram content (including Pages, groups, events or sites that use Facebook Login) may make limited reference to “Facebook” or “Instagram” in ad text for the purpose of clarifying the destination of the ad.​
Ads should not represent the Facebook brand in a way that makes it the most distinctive or prominent feature of the creative.​
Facebook brand assets should not be modified in any way, such as by changing the design or color, or for the purpose of special effects or animation.​
Examples

  • Do always display the word “Facebook” in the same font size and style as the text surrounding it
  • Do always capitalize the word “Facebook”, except when it’s part of a web address
  • Don’t pluralize the Facebook trademark, abbreviate it as “FB” or use it as a verb
  • Don’t use the “f” or Facebook logos in place of the word “Facebook” in ad copy
  • Don’t use the Facebook corporate logo in an ad. The logo is reserved for corporate use
 
Apr 23, 2018
780
476
215
deaftourette.com
#46
They already allow hate speech to flourish on their platforms...


I remember going to a George Zimmerman FB fan page and the amount of N-words being flung around by non-black people was ASTOUNDING... calling Trayvon Martin the N-word thug, porch monkey and other things and folks liking those comments was ... Saddening.


As a black man, I tried to report the page for hate speech (as supposedly that's against the community standards)... But they replied back to me that the page and posts I reported didn't violate their terms.

That wasn't the only time I was told anything I reported (which hasn't been much) didn't go against FB's community standards.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
#49
Don't you just love how Republicans are all about gubmint doing the work for them now?

I know I do, comrade.
Its the same as all their other "beliefs". They only believe in them so long as its useful. Their "Christian Family Values" garbage is the pinnacle of their hypocritical crap. We have an entire party that claims to care about "good Christian values" or whatever while also being corrupt politicians who are supporting a man who goes against all of what they claim to care about. Kind of like when Peter Strzok was testifying before the House and all those Republicans were trying to give him shit for having an affair.........while also supporting Trump who we know has had several of them. Its absurd.
 
Likes: 7echnicolor
Jul 19, 2018
871
520
230
#50
You purposefully misrepresented Twitter's scale, for starters. And I suspect that the law could only be enforced based on the US user volume, which would put Twitter under the limit.

Also, this raises all kinds of legal questions. What kind of features does an internet company need to have for their size to make them into public spaces? And are you prepared to create a two-tier system where smaller internet companies are free to decide what they host, but larger ones are not? Are you ready for social networks that arbitrarily cap their user bases so that they don't have to let in bigots and expose their users to potential harassment?




Only it isn't. It doesn't formally declare social networks to be public spaces; it simply tries to dictate what those networks must carry. This is something you can't accomplish in a state legislature. It has to be federal, and it has to survive a constitutional challenge, because you'd be altering the definition of free speech.




You do realize this is a fundamentally flawed argument, right? Newspapers are companies. TV networks are companies. Websites are companies. If we pretend they don't have free speech rights, the US government can legally compel any outlet with editorial oversight to carry content against their will. That's a dark path that we should never explore.

I think non-violent hate speech is legal on a basic level, by the way -- I just don't believe companies should be forced to give it a platform, like you do.
It’s not the same thing and you know it. And no one gives a shit about your tactical ”muh private company”, Libertarian arguments.