Trump Got Free Speech Wrong in Suit Over Ban, Twitter Says (bloomberg.com) 272
Twitter asked a federal judge to throw out Donald Trump's lawsuit over his ban from the platform for stoking the U.S. Capitol riot, arguing the company's right to free speech is at stake -- not the former president's. From a report: Twitter's First Amendment rights "are at their apex" in the case because the editorial decisions Trump is challenging relate to matters of public concern, including threats to the peaceful transfer of power, Twitter and its chief executive officer, Jack Dorsey, said in a San Francisco federal court filing. Trump "agreed to abide by Twitter's rules, and yet proceeded to repeatedly violate those rules" before, during and after the deadly assault on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters, with tweets that "could encourage further violence," the company said in its filing late Thursday.
Trump's free-speech claim also ignores "that Twitter is a private actor that is not constrained by the federal constitution," the company said. The government "cannot force the private operator of an online platform, such as Twitter, to disseminate speech with which the operator disagrees." Trump is fighting bans or suspensions from Twitter, Meta Platforms' Facebook and Alphabet's Google, accusing the tech giants of trying to silence conservative views and violating his free-speech rights. He's also pressing ahead with plans to launch a rival social-media platform as part of a new media company with "non-woke" entertainment and news.
Trump's free-speech claim also ignores "that Twitter is a private actor that is not constrained by the federal constitution," the company said. The government "cannot force the private operator of an online platform, such as Twitter, to disseminate speech with which the operator disagrees." Trump is fighting bans or suspensions from Twitter, Meta Platforms' Facebook and Alphabet's Google, accusing the tech giants of trying to silence conservative views and violating his free-speech rights. He's also pressing ahead with plans to launch a rival social-media platform as part of a new media company with "non-woke" entertainment and news.
Cue the hypocrites... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cue the hypocrites throwing out wild strawmen.
The 1st Amendment doesn't grant free speech rights to only people.
CU (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I assume you are not for overturning the Citizens United supreme court decision? Because, that was based on first amendment grounds. Corporations can spend whatever they want on political campaigns, right?
For what it's worth, I'm against governmental restrictions on campaign funding, but I'm also against corporations lobbying and otherwise influencing the government. I think a simple rule would fix the situation - if a corporation spends money on any sort of political or social campaign, all levels of government should be barred from buying anything from that company. It's simple, you can try to influence the government or you can be a supplier to the government, but not both.
Re: (Score:3)
That wouldn't fix the problem. Corporations were considered people because they were made up of people within 50 years of the US being founded. I mean, look at the British East India Tea Company FFS. They had armies and navies and took over several countries. Corporations being players in politics is nothing new.
There's not a functional way to limit corporate power without a constitutional ammendment at this point. And good luck getting enough people in enough states for that - corporations will be very muc
Re: (Score:3)
Ripping down statues of disgraced traitors? And it was mostly Republicans canceling their own RINO members over the summer.
Re: (Score:3)
They'd just create corporation #2 to do the lobbying for corporation #1, and wouldn't change anything.
Handled (Score:2)
That's already handled by the government itself in corporate codes dealing with bribery. If company B, partly owned by company A, bribes a government official to benefit company A, company A & B are both liable. Learned it in our corporate "IF YOU BRIBE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS YOU WILL GO TO JAIL" training.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they wouldn't call it bribery, they'd call it lobbying.
And company B doesn't have to be owned by company A. It could just be a service supplier to company A.
Re: (Score:3)
A corporation is just a collection of people. Based upon the law and the wording of the constituion, the supreme court was right - if one person can donate to a campaign, and if a group of people can collectively donate to a campaign (clubs, unions, churches), then what is the legal rationale to prevent a corporation from donating to campaigns as well?
Wringing ones hands doesn't fix the problem that the law is what it is, and if you want to change it then you need to find out how to change the laws and lik
Re: (Score:3)
So the Chinese government should be able to exercise their free speech rights by donating to their preferred politicians. Makes as much sense as allowing other groups to donate based on being composed of people.
I have the feeling that even Chinese citizens can't exercise their rights due to Congress having passed a law limiting their speech.
I like it where I am, only flesh and blood citizens are allowed to donate and those donations are limited to a couple of thousand bucks. Encourages the politicians to wo
Re:CU (Score:4, Insightful)
No, like most of the rights in the Constitution, free speech is a right that people have. Only a few things are reserved for citizens.
I'm for overturning it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I assume you are not for overturning the Citizens United supreme court decision? Because, that was based on first amendment grounds.
This is the whole problem with the US right to "freedom of speech". Surprisingly it turns out to be the wrong right. The European (UDHR) right of "freedom of expression" turns out to be more profound. This is a technological effect. In the old days, the right to speak as you chose made sense. You could get your message through, even in the face of corporations, simply by moving away from them. Nowadays, the corporation is everywhere and when you want to communicate you do that through your phone which
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that giving someone money is free speech seems like an odd one to me. That seems a lot more like, for example, commerce than free speech. Generally, of course, you should still be able to give money to people if you want, but you're clearly barred from doing it in exchange for various goods and services, for purposes of bribery, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
It's already codified into the constitution as the 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is an 18th century way of saying "Just because we didn't list it here, doesn't mean the government gets to trample on it." The attendees of the Constitutional Convention were very clear that they wanted to make sure that the Bill of Rights was not meant to be a complete list of rights enshrined in the governing documents, but rather a few of the absolute most important ones that had to be clearly codified so there was no question, which
Re:CU (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, it's possible we'll see Roe v Wade overturned due to this. The biggest argument made before the court was the the constitution says nothing about a right to abortion, or a right to privacy. The argument by the solicitor for Mississippi did not argue primarily that a fetus of any age has a right to life, but his arguments were the that right to abortion does not exist in the constitution. But Roe v Wade was decided based upon the precdent set in Griswold v Connecticut that there exists a right to (sexual) privacy.
I am not a proponent of the oft misused slippery slope argument, whch is used too often as a scare tactic. But if Roe v Wade is tossed out, and the majority of strong pro-life advocates are also ant-contraception, does that mean Griswold v Connecticut is next in their targets? If the right to abortion isn't in the constitution then could the same justices soon decide if the right to privacy isn't there either? Is it a valid slippery slope argument if what we assumed was a fundamental right is dimissed because it's not enumerated in the constitution? I suspect some of the arguments here would be that this applies only to the feds and not the states, using the archaic notion since the 14th amendment requires states to also uphold the rights of citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, more completely (at least as I understand it), the argument against Roe is that it's a 10th amendment argument:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Because the Federal government was not explicitly delegated the authority to regulate abortion under the Constitution, it should be regulated at the State level, so the State of Mississippi is looking to do that. Of course, the way out of this is for Congress to codify Roe - which I absolutely feel should be done at the federal level under the general premise that one should be able to do wh
Re: (Score:3)
But 14th amendment places the same restrictions with regards to the rights of citizens as are placed on the federal government. Ie, if the feds can't restrict your rights to privacy, then the states can't do it either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The First Amendment doesn't "grant" anything.
It recognizes that these rights are natural rights and it is the government's duty to uphold them.
And this is the problem with these corporations constant hopping of the line between publisher and platform.
If they're going to exclude and editorialize, they're a publisher. Free speech or no.
PERIOD.
Re: The sooner we all leave Twitter, the better. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the hypocrites... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, people who usually scream "free speech" suddenly want forced speech. People who believ in private property suddenly want to control other people's property. People who believe in "small government" suddenly want government regulations.
The owners of Twitter are people. They have free speech rights. Including the right to not have the government, or anyone else, force them to use their own property to publish opinions they don't agree with.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
That is, people who usually scream "free speech" suddenly want forced speech. People who believ in private property suddenly want to control other people's property. People who believe in "small government" suddenly want government regulations.
People that claim "my body, my choice" with regard to vaccinations for themselves, ignore that sentiment with regard to abortion rights for others ...
Re: (Score:2)
Lame distraction, text book "whataboutism." Also, pregnancy isn't transmissible through the air. Fuck off, you ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, pregnancy isn't transmissible through the air.
Ya, I know. Sorry if you misunderstood or I wasn't clear: Anti-abortion anti-vaxxers are hypocrites for using the "my body, my choice" argument ...
(I'm pro-choice and pro-vaccination.)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, okay, sorry. Thought you were saying the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, okay, sorry. Thought you were saying the opposite.
Thanks. I was just trying to add another typical right-wing hypocritical situation to the ones you originally noted -- I'm with you on those sentiments.
Re: (Score:3)
It's astonishing that many in the "pro-life" crowd is also pro-state execution, pro-war, pro-guns even in the face of continuous mass shooting events, anti-mask, anti-vaccination, anti-healthcare, and anti- "big government" stomping on rights, except for when that big intrusive government is going to take away an individual's rights to medical procedures they disagree with, and not because of an act of representative government, but because 5 people in black robes and zero accountability say so.
Re:Cue the hypocrites... (Score:5, Insightful)
Speech inciting violence is not legal speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You were saying?
Slogans like "no justice, no peace" incite violence, but are protected by the First Amendment because they are not incitement to imminent lawless action.
Re: (Score:3)
In Hess v. Indiana (1973) [wikipedia.org], the Supreme Court said that almost exactly that same language was protected by the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speech inciting violence is not legal speech.
The following are examples of legal speech and legitimate protest as determined by Democrats and Twitter:
"What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!" [youtube.com]
"Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon!" [youtube.com]
"Every city every town BURN THE PRECINCT TO THE GROUND" [youtube.com]
"Every city every town BURN THE PRECINCT TO THE GROUND" [youtube.com]
Only Trump's speech incites violence. "fight like hell" must be interpreted only in the most strict sense of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cue the hypocrites... (Score:5, Informative)
The Jan 6th event was indeed violent, the people callling for the mass march to the capital knew it was going to be violent, and it was in no way just a typical day of tourists visiting. Never mind that the doors were locked and it was a clear case of trespass, many were trying to bust into the senate chambers while it was actively in session!
Not worse than 9/11 no. But it was still very bad. You don't need to be as bad as 9/11 before you put someone in jail. Those people marching on the capital were not heros. Yes, many just thought it was going to be a political march, but there were many also who took this very seriously and who were intent on causing harm to either legislators, or the building, or the country itself. If you think this was all just a peaceful protest then you were not paying attention.
Re: (Score:3)
How much video footage do we have of rioters in, say, Seattle, doing the same and worse? Not only fighting with police, but literally forcing an entire precinct to evacuate,
Are you talking about the precinct that was shot up by a boogaloo boy provocateur who then came back to set it on fire?
Nobody is saying that the people who took part in the Jan 6th riot are innocent.
If you're calling them "political prisoners" then you kind of are calling them innocent. As for the "incredible disparity" in treatment, even if it's real and not a Republican pundit fever dream, the Capitol has its own dedicated police force that exists pretty much just to protect it. The FBI is also headquartered about a mile away. It would be kind of insane not to expect them to respond.
Re: (Score:3)
Right now, social media has supplanted what the public square was....it now IS the new public square.
You can believe whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Right now, social media has supplanted what the public square was....it now IS the new public square.
You can believe whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.
You're right that you can believe what you want and that doesn't make it reality. However, Jack Dorsey calling Twitter "the public square" while he was the CEO surely makes the point?
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn’t mean he is correct either.
Re: Cue the hypocrites... (Score:2)
You the same conservatives against net neutrality right? Remember all the arguments against net neutrality? Did not think those could work against you eh? Now wallow in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, social media has supplanted what the public square was....it now IS the new public square.
Except it isn't, no matter how many times you repeat it. The internet is not the public square. The public square is the public square.
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens when the CEO of one of the social media companies in question calls said company "the public square?" You're acting like this is some extremist idea imposed by others, but that's the platform's view of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it isn't, no matter how many times you repeat it. The internet is not the public square. The public square is the public square.
You can make a reasonable argument that the Internet is the public square, since there's only one. There are several alternatives to Twitter though.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! So anytime some private property owner has supplanted the public square, as determined by the government, we can take their stuff. We can do communism with that!
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a shit show, but it would be "free".
Re: (Score:2)
You see the word in front of 'square' ? That's the issue.
Twitter is a *private* square. It's not a public anything.
Re:Cue the hypocrites... (Score:5, Insightful)
False equivalency. It has never been in doubt that the 1st amendment applies to both organizations and individuals because the 1st amendment doesn't say "citizens have the right to free speech." It says that "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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Or put another way, the Constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to free speech. It forbids the government from attempting to limit free speech. Therefore it is literally impossible for it to have any bearing on what a private person or organization decide to do with respect to speech on their own private property.
Part of the problem with the USA today is that most of the people crying "mah rightz" don't even know what those rights actually are.
Re:Cue the hypocrites... (Score:4, Insightful)
They're convinced their rights are to do whatever they want to do without consequence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Religion has had the same damn problem for a few thousand years. Almost nobody really knows or understands what's in their holy book, why it's there, or where it came from.
Which is probably why many (most?) religions haven't historically been strong advocates for educating the masses and teaching them to read and think for themselves.
But they'll freely tell people what they should and shouldn't do, ...
Which is pretty much the point ...
Re: (Score:3)
How is Twitter taking away his megaphone stifling his free speech, he can still say whatever he wants? Twitter has not obligation to provide him with a megaphone.
Re: (Score:2)
He's even started his own media company after finding some new marks. Sounds to me like he can bloviate with wild abandon.
Re: (Score:3)
How is Twitter taking away his megaphone stifling his free speech, he can still say whatever he wants? Twitter has not obligation to provide him with a megaphone.
But a baker should be put in front of a firing squad for refusing to bake a cake with message he disagrees with.
Re: (Score:3)
Strawman.
Re: Cue the hypocrites... (Score:3)
You are not required to become a member of the bakery club, and agree to their terms before ordering a cake. Yes, as they are doing business with the public they cannot discriminate like that.
If they want to have the right to discriminate, then they have to become a membership organization. That is you have to sign up and join and agree to their terms.
People seem to forget that there are legally men only at whites only clubs in this country and they are perfectly legal. Because they are membership organizat
Re:Cue the hypocrites... (Score:4, Insightful)
Conservatives fought hard for that baker to refuse making a gay wedding cake. Now that twitter is refusing service to conservatives it's suddenly not fair.
Re: Cue the hypocrites... (Score:2)
Re:Cue the hypocrites... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the hypocrites... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the real hypocrites are the ones who whine "law and order" yet don't follow the law, then complain when the law is used against them for violating the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter doesn't have to be a separate 'person' in and of itself from the people that comprise it for the the free speech of the people that comprise Twitter to be protected.
The notions that 'Twitter' be treated as a person in and of itself ranges from redundant to problematic. In a discussion of first amendment, it's mostly redundant.
Ban them BOTH, (Score:2)
win win
Before everyone brings up common carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
People bring up CC in an effort to make the case that S230 of the CDA isn't needed, and that we can repeal it and still have a functioning Internet. We can't. If S230 goes, so goes the Internet and free speech on the Internet.
Without S230 every site that has forums will be faced with a constant barrage of lawsuits and trolls. Very large sites run by very wealthy people will be able to fight off these trolls and lawsuits, so their voices will be heard. Everyone else gets silenced. The Internet becomes Cable TV. A consumption device.
Net Neutrality and Section 230 are the pillars of the Internet. Anyone who tells you they can be eliminated without dire consequences is either lying for gain or hasn't read up on the topic.
Re: (Score:3)
If S230 goes, so goes the Internet and free speech on the Internet.
Nope. The Internet extends a lot further than the US borders. And the reach of Section 230. And it's doing just fine without it.
Yes, we know. Curating news for the social media giants is a viable business for some sperglords sitting in their mother's basement, staring at a screen. Want to sue Facebook for cancelling posts? Sorry. It was our 'user community' that found your stuff objectionable. Go ahead and sue the guy with nothing more than an anime collection to his name for modding you off the board.
Wit
The United States' influence extends (Score:2)
Trump wouldn't be responsible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Net Neutrality and Section 230 are the pillars of the Internet. Anyone who tells you they can be eliminated without dire consequences is either lying for gain or hasn't read up on the topic.
Ah, yes, I recall the many Slashdot posts assuring us that, without Net Neutrality, the internet was doomed and would shortly devolve into Mad Max with corporations deciding the rules on their own carved out pieces.
The only problem with this view so far is that we haven't had net neutrality since 2017 [wikipedia.org].
How much longer will we need to wait for these dire consequences to kick in?
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying that (Score:2)
Twitter is not a publisher, they're an entirely new thing built on new tech. Trying to regulate them with laws meant for printing presses is like trying to regulate cars with the laws we used for horses.
S230 was created for a reason, and we have it and it's creators to thank for the modern internet.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Honest question: how does what you're proposing protect freedom of association? Because every time I've heard someone make your suggestion, they seem to be oblivious to what I think is the obvious damage such laws would cause to that First Amendment right.
Say you're into underwater basketweaving, so you set up a message board or whatnot where likeminded people can get together to discuss your shared hobby. One day you annoy the wrong person online, so he gets together with a group of fellow trolls to flood
Not really the point (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just an attempt to continue the grift he's been pulling on gullible Americans for years now. These days, Republicans care more about "owning the libs" than they do any kind of substantive policy position/proposal, and you see it in the fundraising messages they send out. "Help me fight the evil liberals who are attacking free speech!" "The evil liberals want to take away your guns, give me money to fight them!" They file a few high profile lawsuits, put in minimal time, effort, and money, and then when they predictably lose they just fundraise off of messages about the liberal activist judges. Meanwhile, probably 60-70% of the donations that roll in go directly to paying for personal expenses for the politician rather than any kind of action that people donating money think it's going to be used for.
You're not kidding on the "no policy" policy (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point the GOP motto should be "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".
Dorsey isn't the CEO (Score:2)
He gave that role up 11 days ago. Please pay attention to details.
https://news.yahoo.com/jack-do... [yahoo.com]
I'm confused ... (Score:2)
[Trump's] also pressing ahead with plans to launch a rival social-media platform as part of a new media company with "non-woke" entertainment and news.
Does that mean they will or won't carry news about (their words) "Sleepy Joe" Biden or not? :-)
Seems paradoxical either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is not the United States to solve. (Score:2)
How is U.S. regarding right-to-reply? (Score:2)
I assume that if it exists then it should apply to online newspapers as well, right?
Is Twitter an agent of the government? (Score:2)
If Twitter is blocking or 'fact-checking' comments at the request of the US government then they are an agent of the government, and should be bound by the 1st amendment.
Extrapolate this out ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do you draw the line? Here; especially Jan 6; people were killed; on both sides. Where was the call to "don't attack"; "don't hurt anyone"
Freedom of speech has it's limitations. Clearly - the SCOTUS has stated that you can't yell "fire" in a theater - if there is no fire. More to the point there; he still has a platform. He can (and unfortunately does) get his message out. He has violated terms of service; he has incited violence (many, many times). How many times can anyone violate terms of service ( resulting in another's death ) before they not allowed to use that service, permanently ?
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely correct. So, you can legally yell "fire" in a theater, but you still bear responsibility for the effects of that speech. Much like Trump broke no laws in his comments on Twitter, but he still faces consequences for his words (in this case, being banned).
It seems to me that most folks who call for absolute freedom of speech are actually calling for absolute freedom from responsibility and consequences. As you said, that ain't how the law works.
If Trump wins, Trump loses (Score:4, Interesting)
If Trump were to somehow win, then Trump wouldn't be allowed to ban anyone on *his own* websites.
This should terrify liberals a lot (Score:3)
I mean Twitter's whole case basically hinges on "the government cannot force the private operator of an online platform, such as Twitter, to disseminate speech with which the operator disagrees."
So if Twitter "disagreed" with content that is:
- pro-union
- LQBTQ
- anti-racist
- critical of China
- pro Israel
- pro Palestine
- or just literally anything else
We want to set a precedence that lets them ban it, hide it, or otherwise demote and silence it. But hey, most of big tech agrees with us on these things today, so they will forever. Nothing can go wrong. It's not like their power is steadily increasing or anything.
I give it five years tops before 90% of the people who are pro for Twitter on this reverse their position and pretend they were never on the other side of it.
Re:Social Media Platforms have become the Town Squ (Score:5, Interesting)
Even in the real physical world, there is a difference between a public square and privately owned park for example. A group of people can gather to debate in a public square as long as they remain orderly within whatever limits of orderly the public has established. The same group of people cannot do the same thing in the privately owned park unless the owner of the park agrees. If the owner of the park decides they have breached their agreement in how they behave, the owner of the park can boot them out. No difference in the physical world and Twitter.
Re: (Score:3)
The discussion is whether twitter - with 200 million users and more or less the de facto place for news and major announcements by the world's important people/organizations - has become a public forum. It makes no sense to try and analogize back to a 'private park' which a dozen people in the same town might occupy at once and everyone else can just use one of the public parks. That is precisely the scenario everyone agrees with and is not arguing about.
But a private park, if otherwise generally accessib
Re: (Score:2)
People can be removed from the town square for all sorts of behavior and speech. Also, Social Media platforms have not become the Town Square in the 21st century. We still have actual town squares.
Re:Social Media Platforms have become the Town Squ (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that Social Media platforms have become the Town Square in the 21st century. Banning a person's social media account is like physically removing them from the town square and barring their re-entry.
If the people in the town square are there every single day wearing white gowns and blasting out racial hate messages then, yes, they should be physically removed and banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media scares the elite because it expands potential free speech to everyone. Trump is powerful enough to have his ravings published in the WSJ, a privilege
Re: Social Media Platforms have become the Town Sq (Score:2)
No. It is not remotely the âoetown squareâ.
And we should do our damndest to ensure they never consider themselves such and no one ever considers them such.
There is ultimately no such thing as a âoetown squareâ but places meeting that concept clearly have existed. The fact is that people are free to get together and speak their minds. Also, people are free to speak their minds in any public space as long as they are not disturbing the peace.
Thatâ(TM)s all we have a protected right to
Re: (Score:2)
They're like a Town Square, but they're literally not. Not unless the social media platform was BUILT AND MAINTAINED by a public entity.
If Las Vegas created a Twitter clone called "Glitter" for all its residents to use, then THAT would be a town square.
Re: (Score:3)
People we often banned from the town hall.
And Build-a-Bear (don't ask). :-)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If Twitter (and any other social media) is making editorial decisions as to which speech gets out and which is suppressed....
Then we need to alter the laws and remove the section 230 protections for SMs.
So you want laws applied selectively? First define social media. Is slashdot social media?
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a good question.
I suppose that it could be open to all internet sites.
That would take some consideration for sure...
But for social media, I'd say most simple forums like slashdot, etc...are not SM.
I'd say we could start to classify social media as that where posts are promoted/controlled by algorithm, ones like FB and the like use to promote or suppress posts, based either on the company's outlook
Re: (Score:2)
This is too much power to be allowed into the hands of such a small few.
You can address that with anti-trust law.
Repealing S230 will concentrate power (Score:3)
Re: Seems simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you repeated a lot doesn't make it true. Social media is not "the public square".
Publishers control everything that go out under their name, not just selective moderation of the extremes.
These are private spaces owned by private companies that allow you to play in their space as long as you follow their rules. You have no right to try and take it from them by force.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha, public square. Twitter is like the guy who owns the PA equipment refusing to have it on for one speaker to keep from contributing to a riot. And you somehow think the government should step in to compel the guy to spend his resources to operate the PA even when he disagrees with what is being said because he thinks it is putting people in physical danger. That is tyranny. Government compelled speech.
But really your argument is based in fantasy land. A truly unmoderated forum is untenable and y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are claiming 'their' first amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. They don't say "Everything anyone writes on our platform is read and modified before posted or denied."
It's a false equivalence that seems to have gained popularity in certain circles, but it's complete and absolute utter nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to the lawsuit from AOC so she can have a gab account or whatever the new conservative safe space is this week.