Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Republicans Social Networks

New Texas Law Tries Making it Illegal for Social Media Sites to Ban Users Over Political Viewpoints (bbc.com) 469

The U.S. state of Texas "has made it illegal for social media platforms to ban users 'based on their political viewpoints'," repots the BBC: Prominent Republican politicians have accused Facebook, Twitter and others of censoring conservative views... The social networks have all denied stifling conservative views. However, they do enforce terms of service which prohibit content such as incitement to violence and co-ordinated disinformation. "Social media websites have become our modern-day public square," said Texas governor Greg Abbott, after signing the bill into law on Thursday. "They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely...."

The new law states social media platforms with more than 50 million users cannot ban people based on their political viewpoints. Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube are within its scope...

The law is due to come in to force in December, but may face legal challenges.

"Critics say the law does not respect the constitutional right of private businesses to decide what sort of content is allowed on their platforms," the BBC adds, with the president of NetChoice trade association arguing that the bill "would put the Texas government in charge of content policies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Texas Law Tries Making it Illegal for Social Media Sites to Ban Users Over Political Viewpoints

Comments Filter:
  • rank hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @09:37AM (#61784953) Journal

    rank hypocrisy has never stopped the party of small government before. They really have gone off the deep end, and i say that as an independent.

    • by dfm3 ( 830843 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @09:46AM (#61784979) Journal

      They really have gone off the deep end, and i say that as an independent.

      I say the same thing, as a conservative and a republican.

      In an effort to "rally the base", the republican party has shifted their platform to focus on a few narrow, divisive hot button issues and are increasingly pushing for laws that are reactionary and meant to punish the other side. This is virtually unenforceable anyway, and can you imagine the backlash against the law if Facebook and others simply decide to block access to any user located in Texas rather than comply?

      • My dad is so conservative that he makes archie bunker look normal. HE even left the repubs back during Bush because of their new ways.

      • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @11:46AM (#61785331)

        As someone who grew up conservative, and had been rather conservative well into my adulthood,. The Republican party had left me vs having left the Republican party.

        The party had made everything political, even for things that are not. Talking to a modern conservative is a landmine of topics where every freaking topic gets twisted into politics, but it isn't political but just hate speech. Hating liberals, hating minorities,other religions...

        Most social media doesn't kick off people for their political stance, but for spreading fake news and hate speech. Which the current politicians think it is a political stance.

      • by surfdaddy ( 930829 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @03:22PM (#61786049)

        It's Shariapublican law.

      • by gtall ( 79522 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @04:29PM (#61786273)

        I don't think that Republicans have gone off the deep end. I think the rank and file have been down there for a very long time. It just took time for the rank and file to find the right "leaders" onto to which to project their paranoia. The R leaders themselves have changed into a bunch of sniveling grifters who hold their finger up to right wingnut radio to see which way the wind is blowing and then face that direction.

        The rot started with the "moral majority" who decided that "social issues" were more important to the rank and file than economics or foreign policy. With the latter, one could not conjure up scary enough bogymen. With social issues, the sky is the limit for scares that they could personify with any leader who opposed them or was not Evangelically stupid enough to follow them. The net result is a party of whiners with no balls. And they get to thump the Bible for Divine Blessing of their behavior. If you don't believe then you are going to Hell. They have all the makings of a ruthless authoritarian government in their bones.

    • I drew the Venn diagram and it turns out that the overlap between "conservative view" and "co-ordinated disinformation" was 99.8%.

      That's again the TOS so banning is justified.

      PS: The First amendment starts with this gem:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

  • by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @09:38AM (#61784957) Homepage

    This law violates the First Amendment. The government is trying to abridge the rights of Facebook et. al. from expressing their opinions. Note that the Constitution does not protect people from having their expression curtailed by a company, but only by the government.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 )

      I'm curious, do you think it's unconstitutional to block the phone company from refusing service to Democrats?

      • by stabiesoft ( 733417 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @10:35AM (#61785123) Homepage
        Phone company is a common carrier. FB is not. Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from creating a republican FB. A phone company is a bit different, at least when we are talking about POTS. But for whatever reason, congress extended common carrier to cell and voip, probably because it all goes to the same number backbone. It might be a bit weird to have the ATT #111-111-1111 and the verizon #111-111-1111 and they were not the same.
        • > Phone company is a common carrier. FB is not.

          You're responding to a statement about how things should be with a statement about how things are. That doesn't answer why it couldn't or shouldn't be that way.

          > Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from creating a republican FB.

          Given that a ton of internet infrastructure companies are willing to block/deregister or outright attack such sites, I'm going to have to doubt this one.

          > But for whatever reason, congress extended common carrier to cell and

          • That doesn't answer why it couldn't or shouldn't be that way.

            I don't know why it couldn't be that way but I will share my own opinions as to why it shouldn't.

            Facebook and Twitter, despite the talking points, are not monopolies. The very fact that they cooexist while providing similar services makes such a claim an oxymoron by definition.

            Further to the point, there are two types of monopolies that are possible: you have the so-called "natural monopoly" where a player is able to corner the market by providing a product or service that is so popular and valuable to the

        • > Phone company is a common carrier. FB is not.

          It is now, in Texas. That's what the law actually says.
          This "political" stuff is what the author of the article things about that. The author can no longer get posts removed because the post doesn't agree with the author's political opinion, unless such removal is in accord with Facebook's published policy, because FB is now a common carrier under Texas law.

        • Phone company is a common carrier. FB is not.

          Neither the courts nor the legislature have taken that matter up as of yet. Phone companies weren't common carriers until legally defined as such. There's nothing preventing social media from being defined that way, either.

          • > Phone companies weren't common carriers until legally defined as such. There's nothing preventing social media from being defined that way, either.

            And in fact THAT is what this law does..it doesn't have the word "political" in it at all. It says that social media sites with millions of users:

            A) are common carriers under Texas law
            B) Must disclose their policies re blocking and removing content

      • by SkonkersBeDonkers ( 6780818 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @10:43AM (#61785151)

        Disingenuous and straw man rhetoric. The people that have been suspended and/or expelled by FB/Twitter/etc are not being targeted for BEING something, they're being targeted for DOING something specific, i.e., violating the EULA that they voluntarily agreed to.

        And even if you wanted to set aside the fact that phone service providers are actually public utilities and social media companies don't even remotely approach qualifying as a public utility there is the simple fact that yes if you use your phone service to commit fraud, harass people, etc, your service can most definitely be canceled.

        • > violating the EULA that they voluntarily agreed to.

          Then what's the issue with the Texas law, which requires Facebook to publish a EULA and then *follow it*?

      • They're different things entirely, which is why a law was passed to clarify their rights (e.g. Section 230) and make it possible for the Internet to function.

        New tech requires new laws, but those laws (Section 230 in this case) are perfectly consistent with our Constitution. And in the case of S230 you want this, because without that law a handful of powerful people can shut down speech with DMCA style take down notices. Is that what you want?
      • by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @12:25PM (#61785489)
        The more appropriate question is, if Democrats disproportionately abused the phone system, since providers are allowed to terminate service for that, could they still enforce the rules against abuse? Republicans like you are saying no; if enough of a political party breaks a rule, that rule should be unenforceable against them. (Facebook actually does this with some, but not all, of their rules, btw. Conservatives can say things that liberals get banned for.)
        I say no.
    • The government is trying to abridge the rights of Facebook et. al. from expressing their opinions.

      Not really. Zuckerberg can open his own account and post anything he likes. A person's right to speak doesn't extend to them shutting someone else up. Note that the Constitution does not protect people from having their expression curtailed by a company, but only by the government.

      It actually does if thr government takes thr position that speech is protected (it is) and speaking on a subject makes one a member of a protected class.

      • by Sique ( 173459 )
        Full really. It's the company that pays the electrical bill, and the rent for the data centers and the servers and what not.

        Thus it's the company that decides how they use their resources, and which customers they want to serve. And a customer that constantly trolls other people, which are also customers of Facebook or at least possible customers, is bad for business, so Facebook has a contract in place with each user where both agrees under which conditions Facebook offers its services to the customer. A

    • However, speaking purely from an ideological and not a legal standpoint: companies aren't people and shouldn't have the same rights as people. Companies are hierarchical collectives of people. The bottom ranks produce, the top ranks direct. Naturally, companies have much more power than individual people, because they're collectives of people working together toward a common purpose. And since the primary decision makers are the small number at the top, it stands to reason that the people at the top hold fa
  • Texas is the American Taliban. You can't pay me to move to that third-world shithole.

  • by aerogems ( 339274 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @09:43AM (#61784971)

    Just because a disproportionate number of selfish assholes who think that the rules don't apply to them happen to be Republicans doesn't mean companies like Twitter and Facebook are "censoring" them because their Republicans.

  • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @09:43AM (#61784973)
    Assuming it already hasn't been made political, everything can be made political. That's effectively prohibiting anything from being banned if cleverly phrased as a political position. It's not really any different from a person claiming their religion requires they drink at work and firing them for it would be a violation of their religious freedoms. How long until someone claims their spam is a political view?

    I don't mind that websites like 4chan exist where you can be as unfiltered as you want up to violating actual laws, but I wouldn't want every website to be 4chan either.
    • That would certainly be a problem, if the law mentioned the word "political" even once.

      The author of the article apparently noticed that they can no longer report content bases on their political views and get it removed without notice.

      The law does, however, require social media companies to publish their content policies. So if a site decides to promote all posts supportive of Biden, they'd need to say so in the required disclosure of policies.

    • How long until someone claims their spam is a political view?

      Judging by YouTube and Prager U, that time is minus two years. That ship sailed a long time ago.

  • Order what another human being must or must not do with their own vagina IS NOT a "political viewpoint". It is SEXISM.

    Denying another human being the same rights (marrying, adoption, etc.) because you don't like with whom they sleep IS NOT a "political viewpoint". It is VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

    Denigrating another human being for their skin color, native language, etc. IS NOT a "politica viewpoint". It's DISCRIMINATION.

    Etc.

    So... after the complete list (which of course I won't write), what's a "political

    • oh, so forbidding women teachers using their vaginas to have sex with students is sexism? Having Underage women showing their vaginas on internet is sexism? Having prostitutes spreading disease with vaginas?

      Nonsense, we can and do make laws about sex organs and marriage and adoption and rightly so, deal with it.

  • They may be able to dictate what their people can do with their body, but if you don't like what I do with my webpage you can suck my cock, governor.

    Oh, sorry, you only do that if I first own a large corporation. Sorry, my bad.

  • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @10:11AM (#61785043)

    Leave government out of business!

    Stores require masks for shopping

    You're violating our rights and freedoms!

    Which ones exactly?

    You know my rights and freedumz! 'MURICA! *unintelligible gibberish*

    My body my choice! The government can't tell me what to do with my own body!

    I'd like an abortion

    Oh no we can't allow that. Government do something to stop this person!

  • ...political viewpoint. You can make anything into a political viewpoint.
  • by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @10:22AM (#61785089)

    It would seem that the Texas lege has basically adopted the strategy of completely ignoring any constitutional values and drafting and passing any legislation they want to please their Trumpist/right-wing evangelical base.

    The next step is to let Trump-appointed judges protect those laws by refusing to overturn them. I recall reading a number of times comments like "we will see then if Kavanaugh was 'worth it'." If the law doesn't hold muster in court and gets thrown out, their base isn't going to blame them. They will just vote hard right more in order to make it work next time. And if it sticks it isn't like the congress can do anything about it. Manchin will make sure of that.

    In short there seems to be no downside for the crazy-right politician in Texas as long as they keep pushing crazy-right laws.

  • At least people will be forced to say it's their actual viewpoint and not a joke.

  • In Texas, it is legal for a private company to refuse service to someone because of how they're born, while at the same time it is illegal for a private company to refuse service to someone who violates the terms of service.

    Just like it's "My body, my choice" when it comes to wearing a mask, but there is no "My body, my choice" when a woman's been raped and is forced to have the rapist's child.

    • Just like it's "My body, my choice" when it comes to wearing a mask, but there is no "My body, my choice" when a woman's been raped and is forced to have the rapist's child.

      Haven't you heard? Texas is going to eliminate rape. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]

      Apparently they've had this power all along and only waited until now to apply it...

  • Tankies and other often suppressed political groups benefiting from greater freedom to post about their ideologies may be one of those interesting "unintended consequences" ;). Well, I suppose the Church of Satan should already benefit from religious liberty laws... Incidentally I actually don't see that necessarily as a negative consequence at all, but I am sure people like Texas senator Eddie Klanster would, which is what makes it so funny to me.

    As I wonder how this will work out over time, I am reminde

  • by peppepz ( 1311345 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @11:24AM (#61785245)
    They get banned for calumny, libel, inciting people to commit violence, or pushing them to harm themselves, for instance by drinking bleach or taking horse medicine.

    The fact that the Republican party considers these behaviours as part of their identity, speaks volumes about their condition.

  • California is one of a few states that includes political beliefs as a protected class. This was to protect ultra-leftists.

    Now the other side tries it. But because power has shifted, it's bad. How dare they protect their viewpoints!

    I would like to invite both sides to get into a bus and drive off a cliff.

  • We regret to inform you that Facebook cannot serve content to your geographic area due to moronic legislation put in place by your overlords. Have a nice day.


    Because FREEDUMB!!!
  • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @11:50AM (#61785361)

    https://legiscan.com/TX/text/H... [legiscan.com]

    It's long, but the bit most people want to focus on is here:

                Sec. 143A.002. CENSORSHIP PROHIBITED. (a) A social media
                platform or interactive computer service may not censor a user, a
                user's expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of
                another person based on:
                                          (1) the viewpoint of the user or another person;
                                          (2) the viewpoint represented in the user's expression
                or another person's expression; or
                                          (3) a user's geographic location in this state or any
                part of this state.

    There's an exception further down for "expression that the social media platform or interactive computer service is specifically authorized to censor by federal law" (ie, porn) and "unlawful expression, including expression that unlawfully harasses individuals or unlawfully incites violence."

  • by Old97 ( 1341297 ) on Saturday September 11, 2021 @02:03PM (#61785809)
    political viewpoints. As far as I know, no one has been banned from any of the big social media sites for their political viewpoint. Some (not enough) have been banned or suspended for repeatedly posting falsehoods. Your opinions about how big governments should be and how much control they have are viewpoints. Your assertions that your opponents are led by baby-eating pedophiles or that vaccines are part of a conspiracy to depopulate the earth are falsehoods. When you assert something as a fact then the fact can be tested and judged as true or false. When you say something even as extreme as you don't think some other ethnic group should have the same rights as you do, that is a political viewpoint. if you say that same group is genetically inferior, you better have some facts to back that up.

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Working...