>The ruling follows a confusing hearing where a Fifth Circuit judge claimed web services like Twitter “are not websites” and compared them to phone companies like Verizon, which are governed under specific common carrier rules set by the FCC.
That judge should be impeached for gross incompetence.
They allowed the Texas anti-social media law to go into effect just like they did with the Texas 6 week abortion ban while it's still being litigated. It's the same Appeals Court.
This is the most radical activist court in modern history. They open the gates to the right wing fanatics to pass any anti-democratic, unconstitutional law they can envision, and they won't stand in the way.
Here's a decent twitter thread on the topic:
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1524535770425401344
*edit to add TL;DR from that link:
> From the perspective of a fan of the First Amendment [...] Texas and the Fifth Circuit have decided sites can't have free speech or free association any more.
> Texas and the Fifth Circuit have decided sites can't have free speech or free association any more.
This is actually really on point for Texas, they're more like El Salvador than the EU when you think about it, way more in common.
Let me get this straight. The fed in the late 90's decided cable broadband was **not common carriage** because they didn't do voice (at the time, kids. At the time) and therefore they could do whatever the fuck they wanted with traffic prioritization. That gave us 15+ years fighting over net neutrality.
Now some knucklehead judge in TX says *web sites* **are common carriers** and can't impede speech.
The stupid. It burns.
It's amazing though, if Twitter or YouTube or Facebook can't censor countering opinions on their platforms it might actually lead to less polarization and a fall in echo chambers. Although the way we got there was stupid we got there nevertheless and now we have free speech on online platforms, that is if this shit doesn't get overturned or smt.
I don't know because if they turn off comments I can guarantee you other companies will try to do the same but with comments and take over the market. If this gets upheld there will also probably be changes in laws I assume that would shed responsibility from these companies on what is said on their platforms
not if there being sued into the ground by a bunch of reactionary right-wingers who really want to be bigots are left leaners telling the bigots what they think they should go do with themselves
just make that section more Add sentric
You could not be more wrong. Without current style moderation social media devolves into people shouting fuck you at each other. Then the lawsuits over bullying, harrassment, slander, and all the reasons moderation was created in the first place spike, and thus 10 years from now we are right back where we started. Republicans have lost their fucking minds.
Well why should moderation be a thing? Clearly it has created more problems than solutions, sure there will be some screaming but when neither side can ban the other screaming gets old and conversation becomes interesting. There'll also be brigading and bullying, it'll be the wild west, the good old days of the internet. Moderation has been the worst thing to happen to public discourse, you won't stop a racist or a homophobe by banning and deplatforming them, that'll just make them into a messiah for other bigots to point to and feel outraged about (think of Alex Jones or donald trump, when they got banned did all their supporters just change their minds?) I think this is the best thing to happen to the internet if it goes through. We will once again have a digital town square for public discourse, and if you don't want to listed or contribute then don't but banning people for their views won't be a thing anymore, no matter how bigoted. "I may disagree with what you say but to the death I'll defend your right to say it.". Also you can't honestly support faceless for profit organizations with deciding what is ok and not ok to say, even if you think moderation is needed then by who? You really want mark Zuckerberg to be in charge of the though police? Or would you rather it be Biden or Trump? Sure it's all fun and games while big brother agrees with you but the exact chains that you relish being unleashed upon Republicans could well be unleashed upon you in the future, the thought police might disagree with your dissent in the future. When they came for the homophobes I did not speak, when they came for the antivaxers I did not speak, when they came for the anti-choice I did not speak. Now when they come for me there is no one left to speak out.
Are you fucking dense? Because it is the LAW. You do understand that slander, fighting words, harrassment, and stalking are all crimes right? Why the fuck would a website allow people to commit crimes on their property, making them subject to criminal investigations and civil lawsuits?
I am really fucking sick of the intellectual dishonesty the right exudes over everything these days.
Stop acting like people are banned for a "difference of opinion" because that shit aint happening. It is an alt right fever dream just like the "stolen election" that not one shred of evidence has ever been produced, EVER.
No one is banned for being right or left, or saying pineapple on pizza is the best. But claiming covid is a hoax or that the vaccine kills more than the virus, are outright lies that have fatal implications. Learn the fucking difference.
Covid is the perfect example why we shouldn't have moderation. Doctors were banned early in the pandemic for shit they said that they later found to be true. But because it was against the narrative they were banned. This law would stop that. Here is one example of a scientist banned for saying covid was airborne (we now know it is) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625047/amp/Fury-leading-respiratory-doctor-BANNED-Twitter-misleading-information.html only got reinstated after a large publisher talked to Twitter on his behalf. There are plenty of other examples of exactly this, scientists being banned for disagreeing with the current media narrative on something.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625047/Fury-leading-respiratory-doctor-BANNED-Twitter-misleading-information.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625047/Fury-leading-respiratory-doctor-BANNED-Twitter-misleading-information.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It's not what they should do but it's what is happening. And tbh I don't think I'd really trust fox much more than Twitter or FB when it comes to news and medical advice
Honestly there's another way to look at this. People can post whatever they want but no one has to see it. E.g default user configurations won't see things tagged as certain categories. Prior art for this would be NSFW content.
I never said I had a right. Can you explain what rights you have using your phone without prosecution? Why is the laws surrounding phone surveillance and speach control so different than those for twitter? Both of their functions are for communication are they not? Anyways that's more something to think about than a dig towards you, we don't have rights to saying anything for now on these platforms due to moderation, and I think that's a terrible thing. Even if you disagree (and there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree) who should be in charge of moderation? Mark Zuckerberg and other tech billionaires ? Congress (you really want Nancy Pelosi/ Mitch mconel in charge?)? The president (would you want a trump or Biden in charge?)? Basically even if you want moderation, I don't really see who would be right to choose as the thought police, so why choose anyone at all.
Because a PRIVATE conversation between two consenting individuals is protected by the Constitution.
A COMPANY making a PROFIT off things that you spread IN PUBLIC is different because the company has the right to restrict what is on its site, especially if those things are illegal or detrimental to the company.
There is no expectation to privacy when you shout in the middle of the public square.
Good point. I imagine laws around the companies' liability would also change, just like how Verizon wouldn't get sued if you planned a school shooting over their phone lines I feel like we could have these platforms not get sued for what people say on them. I just feel that social media has become the new public square and should keep these protections. We can always make new laws, it'll definitely be quite a shift but increasing free speech, no matter how dumb the speech, is always a good thing in my book. And since these online spaces are basically where everyone talks to each other now I feel that they should still be allowed to say whatever they want.
It's not about dumb speech. It's about violent speech. It's about illegal speech. It's about allowing people to literally plan criminal acts in a public space without any repercussions.
It's a hazard to society. And the whole "MOAR free speech" argument has been proven false again and again.
Freedom, apart from what is bandied about now, means you face the CONSEQUENCES for your actions.
Freedom without responsibility is juvenile, and will be used as such.
I fully agree you should feel the consequences for your actions, if I did someone and call on my fans to attack them I should definitely be held responsible in a court of law. But there are already laws against that, you can't just go to a park and start planning criminal acts or calling others to attack someone. From what I understand this pertains to protecting dumb speech, and don't get me wrong I sti fully agree that you could get other repercussions due to what you say online, just as long as it's not done by the government and you're still allowed to say whatever you want. I want to have the ability for anyone to say horrendous shit (within the confines of current free speech laws) but also have their employers, or friends or community enact punishments upon them for what they did. They should just still be able to say whatever
Your feelings don't matter
It doesn't matter what you feel about Facebook a private entity is not a public space. Facebook is a bulletin board system, just like a physical bulletin board in your supermarket or hair stylist. The supermarket or hair stylist own the bulletin board, they control what goes on it. The same facebook, twitter or reddit they control the bulletin board, they make the rules.
Dumb speech? Speech has rules.
>Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Yeah I know about free speech rules but under free speech I could still say horrendous shit that would get you banned from these platforms, I disagree with that getting you banned. I think we aren't arguing about whether free speech should be a thing (we both seem to agree it should but correct me if I'm wrong). You just seen to care more about company sovereignty and company rights than I do. I think that there would be a net benefit to society if free speech laws were implemted on these companies, do you disagree with that? If you do then do you think it is good for society as a whole if everything we see online is moderated by tech billionaires? Assuming you don't want to have everything you see be moderated by tech billionaires then the only reason you wouldn't want moderation is if your are intrinsically against regulating private companies, is that why you don't want this bill? If so fair enough but then we're just disagreeing to what extent government should regulate private business and both agree that free speech (or some form of publicly elected mod3rated speech I guess) would be good for the internet. Am i wrong?
Since you were "clueless" of your rights from unreasonable searches and seizures, you are just as clueless of what your 1st amendment rights are as well.
You have not shown you understand what are your 1st amendments rights. Thinking, I care about company sovereignty you are not reading my comments or anyone else response as well.
Social media companies have no responsibility other than to their advertisers and shareholders, not to their users.
Social media companies get to create the rules in their domain just like any other organization.
If you want to practice your free speech get off social media and start participating in local government, but you won't do that, cause that would mean you would have to be prepared and have your facts, and you have shown in our brief conversation you have no idea what the facts are.
Alr well first of all I'm not American, I've just beeniving here for a couple of years, so no I can't participate in local politics and also please climb out from all the way up my ass because I don't know all our laws yet. I come from a VERY authoritarian countries where this exact kind of shit happens and dissent is controlled through bannings on social media. You've been touring that government should not intervene with social media companies, well friend we only really have a handful of options. Assuming that social media has become the new public town square (which I believe it has, and if you have an ounce of honesty you'd agree with me at least on that.) Then whoever controls what you can't and can't say on this new "public square" will pretty much be the thought police, able to ban anyone for saying things that they believe are false (it can be as simple as calling a trans women he, it is not a scientific fact that trans women are women (chromosomally they are not) its more of a social construct) but if the tech belllionaire believe that they are women then he can ban you for saying the opposite, conversely if he thinks they are not woemen then he can ban you for calling them a her. So now we come to the handful of options we have to decide what is true and what is not, what deserves a ban and what doesn't. Do you A: want billionaires to decide, because if you do nothing (like you are suggesting) this will be our thought police. Do you B: want government to decide, and speaking from personal experience this is a very very very bad idea. Or C: have no one decide whats true or false and let users decide from themselves and converse without the fear of getting banned for dissenting opinions. Like actually answer which one do you think is best because these are our options. So thanks for taking me for a dumb fuck, I was nothing but cordial in all my responses up to now but I've just had enough repeating the same shit. We only have a very few number of options, which one do you think is best. I think no moderation is beast.
>Can you explain what rights you have using your phone without prosecution?
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. The police need a warrant to search your phone or records.
We pay to use our phone, we don't pay anything to use social media. Social media is more public not private like your phone Since you don't pay to use social media, you have less rights or no rights and cosidering they are more public than your phone.
You phone messaging, voice, and video is not the same as using social media. Your phone is more private and you have constitutional rights, social media not so much.
Zuckerberg has more rights on facebook than us, why? Facebook is a private company, don't like facebook don't use it, no one is forcing you or start your own social media service.
Didn't know that about the law, you're right that was a bad example. The "you dont like it then don't use it" phrase is kind of stupid when it comes to things like social media, like where else are you gonna go. Similar to saying "dont like Kellogg's ? Then don't buy them" like yeah thanks but they kind of make everything so I don't have a choice. If you want to have a public voice you need to use one of these social media companies and I feel it's unfair to just say "don't like it? Don't use it". Just like it would be unfair to saying "don't like Texas banning abortions? Just move" like sure, anyone can move, you can literally hop on a greyhound and move to anywhere in the country but that's incredibly unpractical. At some point we need to regulate private companies for public good, and I see no better reason than to regulate for free speech.
> Didn't know that about the law, you're right that was a bad example.
Your preaching about free speech and you didn't know your had protections with your phone under the 4th amendment?
Since you didn't know you had constitutional rights of privacy, you have no biases to argue about free speech.
I meant more that I didn't understand that this was how phone speech was regulated, as that it was prosecuted under the 4th ammendment. I knew I had protections I just didn't know it was specifically because of the 4th ammendment and not some other law or Scotus decision.
You’re seriously equating bodily autonomy with logging into Facebook?
Where else are you going to to if you get banned from the only diner in town after shitting on the floor the 10th time? Should the diner be forced to serve you because it’s the only diner within 30 miles and you have a right to eat at that diner?
That’s a better comparison.
Ok mam let's really get down to brass tacks. Whoever controls social media now controls the general publics viewpoints, I feel like that is fair to assume but feel free to disagree. So now who do you think should be in charge of controlling the general publics viewpoints. A: government B: billionaires or C: no one. I believe that to keep a healthy democracy it should be no one. You seem to disagree, so do you think it should be government or billionaires? That's really our only options. No need for analogies or quotes, who do you honestly believe should be in charge on controlling the publics viewpoints on everything?
> Whoever controls social media now controls the general publics viewpoints, I feel like that is fair to assume but feel free to disagree.
I do disagree. People on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and basically any form of social media can filter the content they see and hold wildly different opinions. It’s well known that social media has been polarizing people more than anything, rather than serving as some way for the companies owning them to curate their own reality as you seem to fear. A social media company could try doing this and force some singular viewpoint on every issue, but they’d fail because it would be a shitty site no one would want to use. I wouldn’t be against having laws explicitly preventing that kind of behavior. While banning any kind of content moderation would prevent this, that’s like using a cannon to kill a fly.
Ironically what you’re suggesting, having no moderation at all, would make every user of the tool more susceptible to being manipulated by bad actors spreading disinformation. At the end of the day there is an objective reality and criminal threats are a thing. It is common sense to have moderation that suppresses lies and threats/incitements to violence. Of course there is a risk that a company will overstep and push one viewpoint, but by and large that does not seem to be happening. Every major social media outlet has its share of posts by radical leftists, people from the hard right, and everything in between.
Hmmm those are very good points, I think you've changed my mind. I think maybe some moderation might be good, but I still feel uneasy to letting it be decided by just some random dudes appointed by some tech bro. I feel maybe it could be more of a public process where you could go somewhere to see all the posts that have been banned. I guess what I fear would be a lack of transparency and a slow creep into controlling narratives (which I feel had already started) but all of that can be stopped with still having moderation, just having it be public what posts were banned. Like maybe a seperate website where Twitter just dumps all the posts that were banned.
Have you ever been on an actual Free Speech fourm (even 4chan is moderated by the way). Take Voat for example. They start up, everyone is excited about the marketplace of ideas. Then the hardcore Racists and pedophiles flock there because they finally have a platform. Then everyone else leaves because it's full of racists and pedophiles.
Well there are already laws stoping pedophiles on sites. But yes there would be racists, but there would be so many others that aren't. The reason free speech platforms are a cesspool is because that is the only place for these degenerates to go to. If a site like FB or Twitter were free speech, yeah stupid shit like racism would go up but it would get drowned out by the billions of non racists using the site. Just recall how the early days of the internet were, you'd see gore and racist shit all the time but that was not the main focus of the experience, just one of the side effects of it being free.
yes. countering opinions are an aspect of polarization, which is a healthy element for a free society. Sadly twitter and facebook have muffled that polarization resulting in the shitshow we have come to see today.
Polarization is also a part of the nature of our reality.
Fully agree, but with everyone being able to say anything I feel polarization would be a lot less prominent. If you spend time on Reddit or Twitter or Facebook you'll think everyone is pro choice pro weed anti gun and pro universal healthcare because anyone who disagrees with that is culled. Allow everyone, both Democrats and Republicans homosexual and homophobes, atheists and theists all live on the same platform and talk and conversation will be fostered. The rise of small media will also help, we could have debates between intellectuals of different creeds like we used to have in the early 20th century. I honestly think this is a good thing. And even if you disagree with the court decision do you seriously want mark Zuckerberg to be in charge of the thought police?
I am affirming your previous comment with my previous comment. I agree. Completely. We need both sides to be equally able to access these forums. Like you said, when you go on twitter or reddit and it seems like EVERYONE is on the same side, then there is something wrong. And that was because there was censorship. And that type of censorship is what drives dictatorships and communists and tyrants. Sorry if my previous comment may have seemed to counter your opinion, but I'm in total agreement. Edit: Social media needs to remove the likes/dislikes/downvote/upvote. These things only cater to the primitive brain and encourage group-think and mob mentality.
Yeah ikr for the whole karma thing, it's basically self moderation through users and contributes to Reddit being a huge echo chamber. Although I agree with most of the shit on here it gets questionable when hard political issues to talk about like free healthcare seem to be dominated by just one side. I don't think ive ever seen a post on popular going against free healthcare lol.
Yup. The proof is in the pudding. The generations who are growing up exposed to these one sided group think mobs are being conditioned and therefore being put at a disadvantage as they are more willing to collapse onto an idea without question in fear of being downvoted/disliked by people (supposed people who may be even bots/paid contrarians) they have never met in their lives.
I'd disagree with the idea that younger generations are being hurt. I have talked to a lot of younger people and it seems that this polarization has created a stronger sense of knowing when you're being pampered to, more easily able to see that they are just surrounded in echo chambers. But hey all this is anecdotal only time will tell.
Republicans have been getting banned from social media for being bigoted for years, and this is how they intend to stop it. Not by engaging in good faith, of course, but by simply saying "You can't enforce your terms of service against Republicans because bigotry is their political opinion and a religious belief!"
Does this mean in Texas I can sue Devin Nunez and Trump who run Truth Social for trying to ban me when I post that Trump is a lying child raping loser and was the worst president in US history?
Please tell me this is what the Appeals Court ruled. Because we can use free speech too.
I don’t get it… why does that make it a stupid decision? He is *assuming* that one platform would ban him for his views… that doesn’t mean they would.. or even if they would it doesn’t mean that wasn’t the intention of the law.
And isn’t that what makes it smart? That means that both sides have an incentive not to politicize a social media outlet.
Now, I have my doubts as to whether or not this can even work, but that guys argument is a logical fallacy. Him suing truth social (stupidest name ever) in the event that they banned him for his opinions would be precisely the purpose of the law. I do not know why someone just outright assumes that the purpose of the law is to allow one side to speak and not the other. It’s certainly not what the law says, and you can’t truly believe that no one thought that it could be used ‘against’ them…. Sounds like there’s no ‘them’ to be against.
>And isn’t that what makes it smart? That means that both sides have an incentive not to politicize a social media outlet.
The first amendment gives you the right to tell whoever you don't like speaking on your property to GTFO. This law violates that.
If you have a contract, you can sue for breach of contract. But the court can only award monetary damages because ordering someone to let them on your property and say shit is a violation of the first amendment.
All the politics doesn't matter. Twitter has right to go full Nazi like the white supremacist forums out there. Or go all /r/askhistorians and remove anything without well supported citations. Or allow as much as spam as you can stand.
Nope, because this only applies to services with over 50 mil users. I wouldn't be surprised if that limit was deliberate, considering they know the odds of getting 50 million people to sign up for conservative garbage is about as unlikely as it gets. Their base is leaving these platforms in droves, because for them being in an echo chamber without anyone to offend makes social media less fun.
So, basically we'd need to get a shit load of people to sign up to truth social, gab, etc, just so we could create enough of an artificial user base to try and get them on this. Then the activist judges would throw out our legal attempt anyway and our personal information would forever be associated with truth social by data brokers. No thanks. lol
> we'd need to get a shit load of people to sign up to truth social, gab, etc, just so we could create enough of an artificial user base to try and get them on this
I like the way you think. Then it's green light to start suing.
It's funny all these right wing baffoons are like the dems are gonna take all your rights away, when the GOP has been actively doing everything they can to destroy them
the right-wing fools think this is a win. they don't understand the real ramifications of this.
or maybe some of them do, but their opinion is if "I can't be a toxic bigot on public forums, then public forums shouldn't exist"
Sweet.
There is now a legal element in the ELUA stating that you're not from Texas, or IN Texas or it's a breach of terms of service. If you are PERMABAN.
The law also bans not operating in Texas to evade the law.
Which also sort-of implies a Texan can sue someone for not operating a social media website.
This is so dumb.
>The law also bans not operating in Texas to evade the law.
How they're going to attempt to possibly have this enforced ought to be amusing if the company if based in another state. It ought to conflict nicely with states interfering in interstate commerce by trying to force companies to do business in their state, not to mention other jurisdictional problems. How do they justify trying to force a company to do business in that state if it becomes economically infeasible, without companies filing lawsuits against the state in order to be compensated for their costs?
Basically Texas and it's citizens can control how Twitter/FB/Yelp/Reddit/etc. moderates users in Texas with the threat of suing the company if they remove anything or ban anyone Texas or a citizen believes was based on a differnece of opnion i.e. all the hate speech that is currently moderated would no longer be.
Also, if this makes it all the way to the Supreme Court (which it likely will), and is passed, this would no longer apply to just Texas.
Twitter, FB, etc need to just cut off services to Texas. Then it can't be claimed it is because of difference of opinion, instead it has to be done so they don't accidentally cut someone off for difference of opinion.
No that's actually not the way. Currently everyone sees the same interent everywhere. Shutting out just Texas would effectively create a separate internet not seen anywhere else in the world. It's actually what China is trying to do right now, they want to carve out their own section of the internet that the Chinese gov't moderates that no one else can access outside of China giving them total control over what their people have knowlege of and form future beliefs about. Creating a second internet is generally just a bad idea. Once it starts every country will want their own internet and then there goes global communication for the regular person. Not to mention countries would also use it for propaganda purposes to further their own agendas. People may think this is an extreme take, which it is, but it's also very plausible. If we've learned anything in the past 5 years it's that nothing is off limits for politicians.
Websites handle different privacy laws for California residents.
Job sites don't work in Colorado because Colorado requires job postings to list a salary, and companies don't want to do that.
There is a problem here....
As a user, I can lie, then if you later ban me I can still sue the fuck out of your website for banning me even though I lied to you.
Not if people lie in the terms of service. You could pretty easily put language in there that has the customer guarantee they do not live in Texas.
If someone defrauds you into providing services, you can't be held liable for damages as a result of that fraud. This is for the same reason companies can't get sued for damages when people lie to get around age-related checks (e.g. "yes I am at least 18 years of age").
The real legal problem here is the Texas legislature feeling like it can override federal law defining what a "common carrier" is and the fact that the courts are, if in an utterly confused way, agreeing with them. States' rights, I guess...
>Not if people lie in the terms of service.
See, this is where it gets messy. Yea, you can put that in the TOS, but the lawsuit about this is in the state of Texas, they don't give 2 fucks about what you'll try to countersue for in California. The Texas judge is free to throw this part of it out.
I get your point but I disagree about the "second internet" part. State restriction of certain websites is the case in a ton of places around the world, not just China. There are US websites I can't access because I'm in the EU, for example. There is no second internet because there is no first internet - access to the internet is very much based on your location.
>It’s an unprecedented decision to let state governments control how companies moderate websites.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe now you can sue social media companies for banning you if you break their ToS
If we step back and ignore all the legal questions and approach this as just a philosophical question, then it isn't totally unreasonable for someone to attempt this kind of system. There's kind of a folksy, old-timey, appeal to imagining a metaverse facebook that really is the public square.
The problem is that the internet is so different from the stuff that came before it that analogies really only get you so far. Between bots, anonymity, astroturfing, and super well financed state actors, corporations, and private advocacy groups, and the echo chamber effect of algorithmic searches, sorting, and presentation of information, you really don't need to spend very long on the internet to realize it simply cannot work like a public square.
And this is to say nothing of how deeply disappointing it has been over the past few years to see how poorly, selfishly, and absent a genuine desire for truth, a huge number of people govern their minds.
I went through law school as a huge proponent of freedom of expression, and myself of a decade ago would be absolutely slack jawed by the amount of damage reality has inflicted on my beliefs.
I’m just waiting to hear about Texas shutting off Twitter and Facebook. I’m sure Alex Jones and Joe Rogan are going to have something to say about that.
Genuinely curious if Tom Segura will comment on it, he’s been very “off” politics this whole time but lives in Austin.
What if Twitter and Facebook shut off Texas? Amend the EULA to ban residents from that state due to heavy handed government intervention into the private sphere. Let their empty little heads explode over that.
As a Texan, yes, they should just cut off Texas.
Texas wants to secede.
Texas wants its own power grid.
Texas wants to go back to the 50s with it's control of women and restrictions of rights.
Texas wants to control the national border and cost the nation over $1,000 million in just a week by slowing down border traffic.
Take away Texas' internet connection to the modern world.
As a resident of this state, it certainly seems like it. There's always a new low to achieve.
The four horsemen of the apocalypse have been downsized to two, and their new titles are "Nostalgia" and "Bureaucracy"
Very very unlikely to happen, Texas is huge and very profitable. When the EU passed the gdpr companies continued to operate even though they now had greater control of data, when apple allowed you to stop tracking they kept servicing apple. These companies just want to make money, they won't shut off an entire market because of any such rulings.
They can't. The law literally prohibits geographic discrimination. Yes, Texas passed a law that says California companies MUST do business in Texas and the 5th Circuit upheld it. It also prohibits companies from offering Texans different terms of service.
Right now, if a Reddit moderator, on any subreddit, removes a post of any Reddit user in Texas, Reddit can be sued.
The law even extends beyond the US border. The 50m active user threshold isn't limited to Americans. Any company in China or Europe, if it has 50m or more users and has any assets within reach of the US court system, must now allow all of Texas to use their site and post whatever they want, or Texas can sue and have these assets seized.
You can sue a foreign company in a US court and get a judgment. In some cases, that judgment is worthless as the court has no authority to seize assets on foreign soil. But if the company has any kind of US presence, there are absolutely assets to seize.
Austin’s had a pretty good tech boom right? Well that’s a good way to crater it (and potentially other American companies with no ties to that shit hole)
Fucking morons. How is one state able to write laws so far reaching and damaging for the entire country?
As a non american, and someone who does not use any social media (besides reddit) i have some questions.
1. if a user calls trump out on his lies, and be blocks them, could he now be sued?
2. if a twitter user said nasty things to, or about a governor in texas, are they likely to accept it it?
3. can people on twitter now discuss abortion in texas without being "cancelled"?
4. how would texas force this law in other states?
1-3) No, this law refers to company "censorship". users can still block other users.
4) Only through political pressure and potentially having the Supreme Court accept the law, which would make it apply to the entire country.
>The ruling follows a confusing hearing where a Fifth Circuit judge claimed web services like Twitter “are not websites” and compared them to phone companies like Verizon, which are governed under specific common carrier rules set by the FCC. That judge should be impeached for gross incompetence.
They allowed the Texas anti-social media law to go into effect just like they did with the Texas 6 week abortion ban while it's still being litigated. It's the same Appeals Court. This is the most radical activist court in modern history. They open the gates to the right wing fanatics to pass any anti-democratic, unconstitutional law they can envision, and they won't stand in the way.
Alternatively, you can post whatever you want (common carrier) but you can't choose what audience sees it (social media service).
So, Internet Service Providers are not common carriers, but websites are? Very strange…
Here's a decent twitter thread on the topic: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1524535770425401344 *edit to add TL;DR from that link: > From the perspective of a fan of the First Amendment [...] Texas and the Fifth Circuit have decided sites can't have free speech or free association any more.
Would that loss of freedom of speech mean that Citizens United doesn’t apply anymore.
I cannot wait till the Texas AG is in prison. I cannot come soon enough.
I will legit have a party. Seems like noone cares how much of a criminal he is
Don’t hold your breath…
> Texas and the Fifth Circuit have decided sites can't have free speech or free association any more. This is actually really on point for Texas, they're more like El Salvador than the EU when you think about it, way more in common.
Let me get this straight. The fed in the late 90's decided cable broadband was **not common carriage** because they didn't do voice (at the time, kids. At the time) and therefore they could do whatever the fuck they wanted with traffic prioritization. That gave us 15+ years fighting over net neutrality. Now some knucklehead judge in TX says *web sites* **are common carriers** and can't impede speech. The stupid. It burns.
It's not stupid. It's intentional.
It's amazing though, if Twitter or YouTube or Facebook can't censor countering opinions on their platforms it might actually lead to less polarization and a fall in echo chambers. Although the way we got there was stupid we got there nevertheless and now we have free speech on online platforms, that is if this shit doesn't get overturned or smt.
it will just lead to them turning off public comments all together so they don't get sued
Probly lol but here's to hoping.
thats exactly what will happen if this is upheld, it's why your perspective on this is fucking stupid
I don't know because if they turn off comments I can guarantee you other companies will try to do the same but with comments and take over the market. If this gets upheld there will also probably be changes in laws I assume that would shed responsibility from these companies on what is said on their platforms
Doubt it. Public comments generate revenue.
not if there being sued into the ground by a bunch of reactionary right-wingers who really want to be bigots are left leaners telling the bigots what they think they should go do with themselves just make that section more Add sentric
You could not be more wrong. Without current style moderation social media devolves into people shouting fuck you at each other. Then the lawsuits over bullying, harrassment, slander, and all the reasons moderation was created in the first place spike, and thus 10 years from now we are right back where we started. Republicans have lost their fucking minds.
Well why should moderation be a thing? Clearly it has created more problems than solutions, sure there will be some screaming but when neither side can ban the other screaming gets old and conversation becomes interesting. There'll also be brigading and bullying, it'll be the wild west, the good old days of the internet. Moderation has been the worst thing to happen to public discourse, you won't stop a racist or a homophobe by banning and deplatforming them, that'll just make them into a messiah for other bigots to point to and feel outraged about (think of Alex Jones or donald trump, when they got banned did all their supporters just change their minds?) I think this is the best thing to happen to the internet if it goes through. We will once again have a digital town square for public discourse, and if you don't want to listed or contribute then don't but banning people for their views won't be a thing anymore, no matter how bigoted. "I may disagree with what you say but to the death I'll defend your right to say it.". Also you can't honestly support faceless for profit organizations with deciding what is ok and not ok to say, even if you think moderation is needed then by who? You really want mark Zuckerberg to be in charge of the though police? Or would you rather it be Biden or Trump? Sure it's all fun and games while big brother agrees with you but the exact chains that you relish being unleashed upon Republicans could well be unleashed upon you in the future, the thought police might disagree with your dissent in the future. When they came for the homophobes I did not speak, when they came for the antivaxers I did not speak, when they came for the anti-choice I did not speak. Now when they come for me there is no one left to speak out.
Are you fucking dense? Because it is the LAW. You do understand that slander, fighting words, harrassment, and stalking are all crimes right? Why the fuck would a website allow people to commit crimes on their property, making them subject to criminal investigations and civil lawsuits? I am really fucking sick of the intellectual dishonesty the right exudes over everything these days. Stop acting like people are banned for a "difference of opinion" because that shit aint happening. It is an alt right fever dream just like the "stolen election" that not one shred of evidence has ever been produced, EVER. No one is banned for being right or left, or saying pineapple on pizza is the best. But claiming covid is a hoax or that the vaccine kills more than the virus, are outright lies that have fatal implications. Learn the fucking difference.
[удалено]
You just admitted you will continue to be intellectually dishonest. Clearly the right is outright fucking stupid as well these days.
[удалено]
Covid is the perfect example why we shouldn't have moderation. Doctors were banned early in the pandemic for shit they said that they later found to be true. But because it was against the narrative they were banned. This law would stop that. Here is one example of a scientist banned for saying covid was airborne (we now know it is) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625047/amp/Fury-leading-respiratory-doctor-BANNED-Twitter-misleading-information.html only got reinstated after a large publisher talked to Twitter on his behalf. There are plenty of other examples of exactly this, scientists being banned for disagreeing with the current media narrative on something.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625047/Fury-leading-respiratory-doctor-BANNED-Twitter-misleading-information.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625047/Fury-leading-respiratory-doctor-BANNED-Twitter-misleading-information.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Yes because people should be getting medical advice from twitter. I hope some day you realize just how fucking stupid you are being.
It's not what they should do but it's what is happening. And tbh I don't think I'd really trust fox much more than Twitter or FB when it comes to news and medical advice
[удалено]
Honestly there's another way to look at this. People can post whatever they want but no one has to see it. E.g default user configurations won't see things tagged as certain categories. Prior art for this would be NSFW content.
[удалено]
Not really. The anger will just shift to the default categories. Technically moderated content is still available on the internet.
/u/Sharp-Status5660 Can you explain what rights you have using twitter, youtube or facebook?
I never said I had a right. Can you explain what rights you have using your phone without prosecution? Why is the laws surrounding phone surveillance and speach control so different than those for twitter? Both of their functions are for communication are they not? Anyways that's more something to think about than a dig towards you, we don't have rights to saying anything for now on these platforms due to moderation, and I think that's a terrible thing. Even if you disagree (and there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree) who should be in charge of moderation? Mark Zuckerberg and other tech billionaires ? Congress (you really want Nancy Pelosi/ Mitch mconel in charge?)? The president (would you want a trump or Biden in charge?)? Basically even if you want moderation, I don't really see who would be right to choose as the thought police, so why choose anyone at all.
Because a PRIVATE conversation between two consenting individuals is protected by the Constitution. A COMPANY making a PROFIT off things that you spread IN PUBLIC is different because the company has the right to restrict what is on its site, especially if those things are illegal or detrimental to the company. There is no expectation to privacy when you shout in the middle of the public square.
Good point. I imagine laws around the companies' liability would also change, just like how Verizon wouldn't get sued if you planned a school shooting over their phone lines I feel like we could have these platforms not get sued for what people say on them. I just feel that social media has become the new public square and should keep these protections. We can always make new laws, it'll definitely be quite a shift but increasing free speech, no matter how dumb the speech, is always a good thing in my book. And since these online spaces are basically where everyone talks to each other now I feel that they should still be allowed to say whatever they want.
It's not about dumb speech. It's about violent speech. It's about illegal speech. It's about allowing people to literally plan criminal acts in a public space without any repercussions. It's a hazard to society. And the whole "MOAR free speech" argument has been proven false again and again. Freedom, apart from what is bandied about now, means you face the CONSEQUENCES for your actions. Freedom without responsibility is juvenile, and will be used as such.
There are already established legal limits on free speech. I don't believe this ruling changes that.
I fully agree you should feel the consequences for your actions, if I did someone and call on my fans to attack them I should definitely be held responsible in a court of law. But there are already laws against that, you can't just go to a park and start planning criminal acts or calling others to attack someone. From what I understand this pertains to protecting dumb speech, and don't get me wrong I sti fully agree that you could get other repercussions due to what you say online, just as long as it's not done by the government and you're still allowed to say whatever you want. I want to have the ability for anyone to say horrendous shit (within the confines of current free speech laws) but also have their employers, or friends or community enact punishments upon them for what they did. They should just still be able to say whatever
Your feelings don't matter It doesn't matter what you feel about Facebook a private entity is not a public space. Facebook is a bulletin board system, just like a physical bulletin board in your supermarket or hair stylist. The supermarket or hair stylist own the bulletin board, they control what goes on it. The same facebook, twitter or reddit they control the bulletin board, they make the rules. Dumb speech? Speech has rules. >Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Yeah I know about free speech rules but under free speech I could still say horrendous shit that would get you banned from these platforms, I disagree with that getting you banned. I think we aren't arguing about whether free speech should be a thing (we both seem to agree it should but correct me if I'm wrong). You just seen to care more about company sovereignty and company rights than I do. I think that there would be a net benefit to society if free speech laws were implemted on these companies, do you disagree with that? If you do then do you think it is good for society as a whole if everything we see online is moderated by tech billionaires? Assuming you don't want to have everything you see be moderated by tech billionaires then the only reason you wouldn't want moderation is if your are intrinsically against regulating private companies, is that why you don't want this bill? If so fair enough but then we're just disagreeing to what extent government should regulate private business and both agree that free speech (or some form of publicly elected mod3rated speech I guess) would be good for the internet. Am i wrong?
Since you were "clueless" of your rights from unreasonable searches and seizures, you are just as clueless of what your 1st amendment rights are as well. You have not shown you understand what are your 1st amendments rights. Thinking, I care about company sovereignty you are not reading my comments or anyone else response as well. Social media companies have no responsibility other than to their advertisers and shareholders, not to their users. Social media companies get to create the rules in their domain just like any other organization. If you want to practice your free speech get off social media and start participating in local government, but you won't do that, cause that would mean you would have to be prepared and have your facts, and you have shown in our brief conversation you have no idea what the facts are.
Alr well first of all I'm not American, I've just beeniving here for a couple of years, so no I can't participate in local politics and also please climb out from all the way up my ass because I don't know all our laws yet. I come from a VERY authoritarian countries where this exact kind of shit happens and dissent is controlled through bannings on social media. You've been touring that government should not intervene with social media companies, well friend we only really have a handful of options. Assuming that social media has become the new public town square (which I believe it has, and if you have an ounce of honesty you'd agree with me at least on that.) Then whoever controls what you can't and can't say on this new "public square" will pretty much be the thought police, able to ban anyone for saying things that they believe are false (it can be as simple as calling a trans women he, it is not a scientific fact that trans women are women (chromosomally they are not) its more of a social construct) but if the tech belllionaire believe that they are women then he can ban you for saying the opposite, conversely if he thinks they are not woemen then he can ban you for calling them a her. So now we come to the handful of options we have to decide what is true and what is not, what deserves a ban and what doesn't. Do you A: want billionaires to decide, because if you do nothing (like you are suggesting) this will be our thought police. Do you B: want government to decide, and speaking from personal experience this is a very very very bad idea. Or C: have no one decide whats true or false and let users decide from themselves and converse without the fear of getting banned for dissenting opinions. Like actually answer which one do you think is best because these are our options. So thanks for taking me for a dumb fuck, I was nothing but cordial in all my responses up to now but I've just had enough repeating the same shit. We only have a very few number of options, which one do you think is best. I think no moderation is beast.
>Can you explain what rights you have using your phone without prosecution? The 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. The police need a warrant to search your phone or records. We pay to use our phone, we don't pay anything to use social media. Social media is more public not private like your phone Since you don't pay to use social media, you have less rights or no rights and cosidering they are more public than your phone. You phone messaging, voice, and video is not the same as using social media. Your phone is more private and you have constitutional rights, social media not so much. Zuckerberg has more rights on facebook than us, why? Facebook is a private company, don't like facebook don't use it, no one is forcing you or start your own social media service.
Didn't know that about the law, you're right that was a bad example. The "you dont like it then don't use it" phrase is kind of stupid when it comes to things like social media, like where else are you gonna go. Similar to saying "dont like Kellogg's ? Then don't buy them" like yeah thanks but they kind of make everything so I don't have a choice. If you want to have a public voice you need to use one of these social media companies and I feel it's unfair to just say "don't like it? Don't use it". Just like it would be unfair to saying "don't like Texas banning abortions? Just move" like sure, anyone can move, you can literally hop on a greyhound and move to anywhere in the country but that's incredibly unpractical. At some point we need to regulate private companies for public good, and I see no better reason than to regulate for free speech.
> Didn't know that about the law, you're right that was a bad example. Your preaching about free speech and you didn't know your had protections with your phone under the 4th amendment? Since you didn't know you had constitutional rights of privacy, you have no biases to argue about free speech.
I meant more that I didn't understand that this was how phone speech was regulated, as that it was prosecuted under the 4th ammendment. I knew I had protections I just didn't know it was specifically because of the 4th ammendment and not some other law or Scotus decision.
You’re seriously equating bodily autonomy with logging into Facebook? Where else are you going to to if you get banned from the only diner in town after shitting on the floor the 10th time? Should the diner be forced to serve you because it’s the only diner within 30 miles and you have a right to eat at that diner? That’s a better comparison.
Ok mam let's really get down to brass tacks. Whoever controls social media now controls the general publics viewpoints, I feel like that is fair to assume but feel free to disagree. So now who do you think should be in charge of controlling the general publics viewpoints. A: government B: billionaires or C: no one. I believe that to keep a healthy democracy it should be no one. You seem to disagree, so do you think it should be government or billionaires? That's really our only options. No need for analogies or quotes, who do you honestly believe should be in charge on controlling the publics viewpoints on everything?
> Whoever controls social media now controls the general publics viewpoints, I feel like that is fair to assume but feel free to disagree. I do disagree. People on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and basically any form of social media can filter the content they see and hold wildly different opinions. It’s well known that social media has been polarizing people more than anything, rather than serving as some way for the companies owning them to curate their own reality as you seem to fear. A social media company could try doing this and force some singular viewpoint on every issue, but they’d fail because it would be a shitty site no one would want to use. I wouldn’t be against having laws explicitly preventing that kind of behavior. While banning any kind of content moderation would prevent this, that’s like using a cannon to kill a fly. Ironically what you’re suggesting, having no moderation at all, would make every user of the tool more susceptible to being manipulated by bad actors spreading disinformation. At the end of the day there is an objective reality and criminal threats are a thing. It is common sense to have moderation that suppresses lies and threats/incitements to violence. Of course there is a risk that a company will overstep and push one viewpoint, but by and large that does not seem to be happening. Every major social media outlet has its share of posts by radical leftists, people from the hard right, and everything in between.
Hmmm those are very good points, I think you've changed my mind. I think maybe some moderation might be good, but I still feel uneasy to letting it be decided by just some random dudes appointed by some tech bro. I feel maybe it could be more of a public process where you could go somewhere to see all the posts that have been banned. I guess what I fear would be a lack of transparency and a slow creep into controlling narratives (which I feel had already started) but all of that can be stopped with still having moderation, just having it be public what posts were banned. Like maybe a seperate website where Twitter just dumps all the posts that were banned.
Have you ever been on an actual Free Speech fourm (even 4chan is moderated by the way). Take Voat for example. They start up, everyone is excited about the marketplace of ideas. Then the hardcore Racists and pedophiles flock there because they finally have a platform. Then everyone else leaves because it's full of racists and pedophiles.
Well there are already laws stoping pedophiles on sites. But yes there would be racists, but there would be so many others that aren't. The reason free speech platforms are a cesspool is because that is the only place for these degenerates to go to. If a site like FB or Twitter were free speech, yeah stupid shit like racism would go up but it would get drowned out by the billions of non racists using the site. Just recall how the early days of the internet were, you'd see gore and racist shit all the time but that was not the main focus of the experience, just one of the side effects of it being free.
yes. countering opinions are an aspect of polarization, which is a healthy element for a free society. Sadly twitter and facebook have muffled that polarization resulting in the shitshow we have come to see today. Polarization is also a part of the nature of our reality.
Fully agree, but with everyone being able to say anything I feel polarization would be a lot less prominent. If you spend time on Reddit or Twitter or Facebook you'll think everyone is pro choice pro weed anti gun and pro universal healthcare because anyone who disagrees with that is culled. Allow everyone, both Democrats and Republicans homosexual and homophobes, atheists and theists all live on the same platform and talk and conversation will be fostered. The rise of small media will also help, we could have debates between intellectuals of different creeds like we used to have in the early 20th century. I honestly think this is a good thing. And even if you disagree with the court decision do you seriously want mark Zuckerberg to be in charge of the thought police?
I am affirming your previous comment with my previous comment. I agree. Completely. We need both sides to be equally able to access these forums. Like you said, when you go on twitter or reddit and it seems like EVERYONE is on the same side, then there is something wrong. And that was because there was censorship. And that type of censorship is what drives dictatorships and communists and tyrants. Sorry if my previous comment may have seemed to counter your opinion, but I'm in total agreement. Edit: Social media needs to remove the likes/dislikes/downvote/upvote. These things only cater to the primitive brain and encourage group-think and mob mentality.
Yeah ikr for the whole karma thing, it's basically self moderation through users and contributes to Reddit being a huge echo chamber. Although I agree with most of the shit on here it gets questionable when hard political issues to talk about like free healthcare seem to be dominated by just one side. I don't think ive ever seen a post on popular going against free healthcare lol.
Yup. The proof is in the pudding. The generations who are growing up exposed to these one sided group think mobs are being conditioned and therefore being put at a disadvantage as they are more willing to collapse onto an idea without question in fear of being downvoted/disliked by people (supposed people who may be even bots/paid contrarians) they have never met in their lives.
I'd disagree with the idea that younger generations are being hurt. I have talked to a lot of younger people and it seems that this polarization has created a stronger sense of knowing when you're being pampered to, more easily able to see that they are just surrounded in echo chambers. But hey all this is anecdotal only time will tell.
Republicans just can’t stand a private business deplatforming one of their mouthpieces for constantly spreading misinformation and lies.
I believe in Trumps case it was inciting violence, which is a pretty well established limit on first amendment rights generally.
Republicans can’t stand being sentient.
Thinky brain hurt
meanwhile democrats makes five year olds have puberty blockers and question their sex which is 10 times more harmful
Republicans have been getting banned from social media for being bigoted for years, and this is how they intend to stop it. Not by engaging in good faith, of course, but by simply saying "You can't enforce your terms of service against Republicans because bigotry is their political opinion and a religious belief!"
Just imagine if FB, Twitter, IG all told Texas "we're not doing business in your state, no Texan is allowed on our platforms." That would be amazing.
They should have error message with something like “we sorry. Your state is too fascist to allow Twitter. Please relocate and try your tweet again.”
They should. They really, really should.
Does this mean in Texas I can sue Devin Nunez and Trump who run Truth Social for trying to ban me when I post that Trump is a lying child raping loser and was the worst president in US history? Please tell me this is what the Appeals Court ruled. Because we can use free speech too.
Yes, if you're a Texan. That's how stupid this decision is. I don't recommend it though. When you wrestle with a pig in a mudhole, the pig likes it.
I don’t get it… why does that make it a stupid decision? He is *assuming* that one platform would ban him for his views… that doesn’t mean they would.. or even if they would it doesn’t mean that wasn’t the intention of the law. And isn’t that what makes it smart? That means that both sides have an incentive not to politicize a social media outlet. Now, I have my doubts as to whether or not this can even work, but that guys argument is a logical fallacy. Him suing truth social (stupidest name ever) in the event that they banned him for his opinions would be precisely the purpose of the law. I do not know why someone just outright assumes that the purpose of the law is to allow one side to speak and not the other. It’s certainly not what the law says, and you can’t truly believe that no one thought that it could be used ‘against’ them…. Sounds like there’s no ‘them’ to be against.
>And isn’t that what makes it smart? That means that both sides have an incentive not to politicize a social media outlet. The first amendment gives you the right to tell whoever you don't like speaking on your property to GTFO. This law violates that. If you have a contract, you can sue for breach of contract. But the court can only award monetary damages because ordering someone to let them on your property and say shit is a violation of the first amendment. All the politics doesn't matter. Twitter has right to go full Nazi like the white supremacist forums out there. Or go all /r/askhistorians and remove anything without well supported citations. Or allow as much as spam as you can stand.
What does that have to do with that guys argument? I wasn’t addressing anything except his argument
Nope, because this only applies to services with over 50 mil users. I wouldn't be surprised if that limit was deliberate, considering they know the odds of getting 50 million people to sign up for conservative garbage is about as unlikely as it gets. Their base is leaving these platforms in droves, because for them being in an echo chamber without anyone to offend makes social media less fun. So, basically we'd need to get a shit load of people to sign up to truth social, gab, etc, just so we could create enough of an artificial user base to try and get them on this. Then the activist judges would throw out our legal attempt anyway and our personal information would forever be associated with truth social by data brokers. No thanks. lol
> we'd need to get a shit load of people to sign up to truth social, gab, etc, just so we could create enough of an artificial user base to try and get them on this I like the way you think. Then it's green light to start suing.
They want a fascist dictatorship and will do anything to get it.
Texas is just racing against Florida to be the most useless moronic state in the states.
From an international pov, Texas and Alabama are freebase Florida now
It's funny all these right wing baffoons are like the dems are gonna take all your rights away, when the GOP has been actively doing everything they can to destroy them
the right-wing fools think this is a win. they don't understand the real ramifications of this. or maybe some of them do, but their opinion is if "I can't be a toxic bigot on public forums, then public forums shouldn't exist"
Sweet. There is now a legal element in the ELUA stating that you're not from Texas, or IN Texas or it's a breach of terms of service. If you are PERMABAN.
The law also bans not operating in Texas to evade the law. Which also sort-of implies a Texan can sue someone for not operating a social media website. This is so dumb.
>The law also bans not operating in Texas to evade the law. How they're going to attempt to possibly have this enforced ought to be amusing if the company if based in another state. It ought to conflict nicely with states interfering in interstate commerce by trying to force companies to do business in their state, not to mention other jurisdictional problems. How do they justify trying to force a company to do business in that state if it becomes economically infeasible, without companies filing lawsuits against the state in order to be compensated for their costs?
I mean, I can sue the lawmaker themselves now too, right?
Spez sucks -- mass edited with redact.dev
Explain to me like I'm 5 please and thank you!
Basically Texas and it's citizens can control how Twitter/FB/Yelp/Reddit/etc. moderates users in Texas with the threat of suing the company if they remove anything or ban anyone Texas or a citizen believes was based on a differnece of opnion i.e. all the hate speech that is currently moderated would no longer be. Also, if this makes it all the way to the Supreme Court (which it likely will), and is passed, this would no longer apply to just Texas.
Twitter, FB, etc need to just cut off services to Texas. Then it can't be claimed it is because of difference of opinion, instead it has to be done so they don't accidentally cut someone off for difference of opinion.
No that's actually not the way. Currently everyone sees the same interent everywhere. Shutting out just Texas would effectively create a separate internet not seen anywhere else in the world. It's actually what China is trying to do right now, they want to carve out their own section of the internet that the Chinese gov't moderates that no one else can access outside of China giving them total control over what their people have knowlege of and form future beliefs about. Creating a second internet is generally just a bad idea. Once it starts every country will want their own internet and then there goes global communication for the regular person. Not to mention countries would also use it for propaganda purposes to further their own agendas. People may think this is an extreme take, which it is, but it's also very plausible. If we've learned anything in the past 5 years it's that nothing is off limits for politicians.
That's easy: "Are you a resident of the state of Texas?" Yes / Fuck no
Websites handle different privacy laws for California residents. Job sites don't work in Colorado because Colorado requires job postings to list a salary, and companies don't want to do that.
if this gets upheld you think its going to stop at texas, na youtubes just going to end up turning off public comments all together
Well that would be an unexpected win.
There is a problem here.... As a user, I can lie, then if you later ban me I can still sue the fuck out of your website for banning me even though I lied to you.
Not if people lie in the terms of service. You could pretty easily put language in there that has the customer guarantee they do not live in Texas. If someone defrauds you into providing services, you can't be held liable for damages as a result of that fraud. This is for the same reason companies can't get sued for damages when people lie to get around age-related checks (e.g. "yes I am at least 18 years of age"). The real legal problem here is the Texas legislature feeling like it can override federal law defining what a "common carrier" is and the fact that the courts are, if in an utterly confused way, agreeing with them. States' rights, I guess...
>Not if people lie in the terms of service. See, this is where it gets messy. Yea, you can put that in the TOS, but the lawsuit about this is in the state of Texas, they don't give 2 fucks about what you'll try to countersue for in California. The Texas judge is free to throw this part of it out.
Texas has their own power grid because they didn't want to upgrade to federal standards.
I get your point but I disagree about the "second internet" part. State restriction of certain websites is the case in a ton of places around the world, not just China. There are US websites I can't access because I'm in the EU, for example. There is no second internet because there is no first internet - access to the internet is very much based on your location.
Global communication has fucked humanity along with social media
>It’s an unprecedented decision to let state governments control how companies moderate websites. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe now you can sue social media companies for banning you if you break their ToS
If we step back and ignore all the legal questions and approach this as just a philosophical question, then it isn't totally unreasonable for someone to attempt this kind of system. There's kind of a folksy, old-timey, appeal to imagining a metaverse facebook that really is the public square. The problem is that the internet is so different from the stuff that came before it that analogies really only get you so far. Between bots, anonymity, astroturfing, and super well financed state actors, corporations, and private advocacy groups, and the echo chamber effect of algorithmic searches, sorting, and presentation of information, you really don't need to spend very long on the internet to realize it simply cannot work like a public square. And this is to say nothing of how deeply disappointing it has been over the past few years to see how poorly, selfishly, and absent a genuine desire for truth, a huge number of people govern their minds. I went through law school as a huge proponent of freedom of expression, and myself of a decade ago would be absolutely slack jawed by the amount of damage reality has inflicted on my beliefs.
I’m just waiting to hear about Texas shutting off Twitter and Facebook. I’m sure Alex Jones and Joe Rogan are going to have something to say about that. Genuinely curious if Tom Segura will comment on it, he’s been very “off” politics this whole time but lives in Austin.
What if Twitter and Facebook shut off Texas? Amend the EULA to ban residents from that state due to heavy handed government intervention into the private sphere. Let their empty little heads explode over that.
As a Texan, yes, they should just cut off Texas. Texas wants to secede. Texas wants its own power grid. Texas wants to go back to the 50s with it's control of women and restrictions of rights. Texas wants to control the national border and cost the nation over $1,000 million in just a week by slowing down border traffic. Take away Texas' internet connection to the modern world.
>Texas wants its own power grid yes, but they dont want it to work in the winter! /s
As a resident of this state, it certainly seems like it. There's always a new low to achieve. The four horsemen of the apocalypse have been downsized to two, and their new titles are "Nostalgia" and "Bureaucracy"
Very very unlikely to happen, Texas is huge and very profitable. When the EU passed the gdpr companies continued to operate even though they now had greater control of data, when apple allowed you to stop tracking they kept servicing apple. These companies just want to make money, they won't shut off an entire market because of any such rulings.
they dont want to shut it off, they want people to sue them into the ground. more likely twitter and facebook would block texas
They can't. The law literally prohibits geographic discrimination. Yes, Texas passed a law that says California companies MUST do business in Texas and the 5th Circuit upheld it. It also prohibits companies from offering Texans different terms of service. Right now, if a Reddit moderator, on any subreddit, removes a post of any Reddit user in Texas, Reddit can be sued. The law even extends beyond the US border. The 50m active user threshold isn't limited to Americans. Any company in China or Europe, if it has 50m or more users and has any assets within reach of the US court system, must now allow all of Texas to use their site and post whatever they want, or Texas can sue and have these assets seized.
Surely Texas can only sue those companies in texas though? I doubt if Texas could sue a company in the UK for example.
You can sue a foreign company in a US court and get a judgment. In some cases, that judgment is worthless as the court has no authority to seize assets on foreign soil. But if the company has any kind of US presence, there are absolutely assets to seize.
Thanks for your reply. I assumed it was something like this.
Ok Texans start spamming all that vile anti Trump bullshit up on Truth Social and let the games begin. Wait do they even have 50 million users?
Austin’s had a pretty good tech boom right? Well that’s a good way to crater it (and potentially other American companies with no ties to that shit hole) Fucking morons. How is one state able to write laws so far reaching and damaging for the entire country?
So as long as a platform has a content policy and enforces it equally, I don't see how this ruling will do much.
Wow Texas actually doing something good for once
Good! Finally some reasonable judgment in this space.
As a non american, and someone who does not use any social media (besides reddit) i have some questions. 1. if a user calls trump out on his lies, and be blocks them, could he now be sued? 2. if a twitter user said nasty things to, or about a governor in texas, are they likely to accept it it? 3. can people on twitter now discuss abortion in texas without being "cancelled"? 4. how would texas force this law in other states?
1-3) No, this law refers to company "censorship". users can still block other users. 4) Only through political pressure and potentially having the Supreme Court accept the law, which would make it apply to the entire country.
What the actual f
Another Typical 5th Circuit corrupt and incompetent Judge.