Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law
bbc.com
bbc.com
I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree
No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism, or improper effect can make a law unconstitutional.
The recent events, where conservative voices were targeted by big tech, was the catalyst for the law, but that doesn't make it illegal.
You seem to be assuming a facially neutral law with a viewpoint specific purpose is Constitutional. It is not.
Usually, its harder to prove an improper purpose for a facially-neutral law, but then usually the people passing and signing a law with an improper purpose don't just public announce the viewpoint they are seeking to advance.
Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism.
It's a very weird, sort of "in your face"-ism. Freedom of assembly means that said assembly can deny people entry or be exclusionary. That's just how a pluralistic society works. Also it's a very non-conservative idea, a sort of political gender quota
Social media platforms are increasingly akin to the pubic forums of old, where essentially all meaningful exchange of ideas takes place — and where excommunication functions like "free speech zones" designed to marginalize and render the exercise of political expression inert.
I would suggest a relevant precedent might be laws limiting media ownership.
I'd also point out that institutions of a certain size exercise control over human in a similar way to governments — and the "private business" distinction becomes increasingly blurry when we consider how deeply these companies collide with law enforcement and govt agencies to censor information.
It's a complicated topic!
Do keep to the subject being discussed.
Do treat each subject separately.
Do not address the same subject twice in the same day.
Do not be insulting and invective towards a fellow citizen.
Do avoid slandering a fellow citizen.
Do not interrupt the proceedings by standing up or shouting or speaking on anything that is not in order.
Do not lay hands on the presiding officers or interfere with their duties.
In fact funnily enough the ancient Board of Presidents is really not that different from Facebook's community oversight board. You will not find any public assembly in history that did not enact rules of conduct and excluded offenders if necessary.
[1]https://studyingreece.edu.gr/7-rules-of-public-speaking-in-a...
My (perhaps sloppy) comparison with respect to public forums wasn't meant to be specific to Ancient Roman strictures, but that's solid trivia.
Perhaps the closer analogue would be modern public spaces in the US — although that too only goes so far.
A church is not a platform.
not only can you say that, it's pretty much a requirement for public platforms to exist on the internet. You are on Hackernews right now. If Hackernews was legally liable for the content users create, it would cease to exist. Likewise, if not being liable meant Hackernews could not moderate the site as they see fit, it would go to hell.
You should be able to make a Christian platform, a left wing platform, a conservative platform, moderate accordingly, and still be able to operate it without facing legal threats that would immediately render operating it impossible. The reason platforms have both rights is why we have a public internet.
But a pulpit is a platform.
Instead, Texas should tax Facebook several millions of dollars for all Texas residents who are on Facebook (and all social media with more than X subscribers).
The law should be written as a measure for the public health and should cite numerous studies pointing out the toxic effect of social media.
The end goal should be to get Texans off social media and to end facebooks monopoly. No one needs social media. It is toxic. It should be treated like tobacco is -- a disgusting habit some engage in.
But that would require the republican party to actually be effective and bold and do what it's voters want.
Until we solve campaign finance reform, no progress will be made on even the most agreeable of policy positions, as long as there are deep pockets opposed.
Or is it an example of Poe's law in action?
Both of these statements are false.
The productivity gains from this action would far outweigh any economic loss.
(Granted, that is from prior to these most recent fiascos.)
Not really, corporations don't give a heck about rights or principles, only regulations and laws.
Corporations verbally obey and pay lip service to the moral fashions of the perceived memetic majority, that's the user interface.
The backend is a ruthless optimization engine maximizing a very specific utility function and caring for literally nothing else.
Problem is, it manages to do some real damage and really hurt some people in the meanwhile.
Oh, but they are! My phone company makes no attempt to influence the content of my voice or text conversations, nor how I use my data plan. Facebook/Twitter do their very best to tailor what I see to keep me scrolling and “engaged.” If this is the new public square, the crack dealers are already selling, and in fact are the ones who built the square.
I think I like the idea of social media as common carrier. It would require vast changes in how their apps are designed though.
> Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws.
This seems like a bad idea, unless you want to elevate the status of political affiliation to that of religion, and expect violations of that protection to be enforced just as unevenly.
What's special about a political viewpoint? How do you even define "political viewpoint"? Is it different from a "religious viewpoint"? Is it different from a run-of-the-mill opinion?
Yes, "conservative" accounts get banned more often than "progressive" ones. Or, at least, that's how it may appear if your definition of "conservative" is dominated by racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia. Which isn't entirely wrong, obviously: traditionally, the ideology that despised all deviations from the norm just came with a different label, fascism.
AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence?
I’ve worked at a large social media company (one most people would not recognize). The loud users that get banned almost always play up the “I didn’t do anything wrong” card but the moderation department has the evidence that they very blatantly did violate the objective standards of the site. The problem is that the public doesn’t see the evidence that the moderation department does, so they are outraged after only looking at half of a ledger.
On the other hand, freedom of association didn't stop the civil rights act.
But freedom of association is less clearly defined in the constitution. Maybe a better example are the many regulations on commercial speech that exist despite the 1st amendment.
Let the judge decide... A company of that size should be stripped of that power
With an exemption that large this doesn't seem too unreasonable. We don't let the phone company ban you for political speech in their platform (the phone call), do we?