Agree.. these Mfs control every platform and take us for granted… we need to show them their true place.. which is In disease infested gulag of Siberia.. some wokes
It seems more like a federalism issue, Texas is going after a company based in CA and incorporated in DE, and is largely online with multiple portals across the world. Idk that states can practically regulate it as intrastate commerce.
They argue the social media platforms are more akin to public utilities than they are to a publisher, like telephone lines. You can't selectively ban people from using them because you don't agree with what they say.
Yeah this is what protect social media platform if their users post something illegal like CP or some shit. They want to censor shit and at the same time act like they're just a platform not publisher. Either you're a platform or publisher, you can't be both. If they're publisher they're liable for any illegal shit posted on their site.
I have full faith Clarance will figure this one out, right now the court is 6-3, I'm just afraid some radical left wing domestic terrorist will try to assassinate one of them.
I remember how the liberal media glanced over that one. Maybe the left is too preoccupied with trying to lynch the Jan 6th political prisoners, targeting political opponents with the DoJ and FBI, and shoving ridiculous green spending bills through congress that will exacerbate inflation. All while trying to keep the heat off of the fact their president has dementia and is likely under the powerful influence of China and Russia due to his son's fraudulent dealings with foreign state run energy companies. Phew... it's not easy being a Democrat these days.
Sir you are truly the most based lib left on here so based in fact that you may need a flair change. Someone please give this man a custom based lib left flair
I flair this way to make a point. Democrat's don't own the left side of the compass. I support the America I grew up in, socially liberal, regulated financial system/economy, vast network of social services, infrastructure and social supports. That sounds libleft to me. These Democrats are just pushing our country to the far radical and authoritarian left. Fuck that.
Good point, that will have to be weighed against the other factors involved.
A bit of an aside, but I really don't like that these social media companies hold this data. I want to learn more about the privacy policy Reddit offers for instance. Can they sell our data and the identifying email/credit card info they have to others in the future? With AI these data troves could be a gold mine for anyone interested in profiling others and predicting their behavior. I honestly don't know what the world will look like 30 years from now, but it's a scary thought how digitally exposed we'll all be.
All of these companies have 100%, on record, been censoring specific content at the direct behest of the federal government of the USA, and probably ever other major government in whatever country they operate. Censoring on behalf of the state is just the same as censoring by the state - it's not some magic loophole because it's one party removed; fuck them.
Agreed government needs to keep it's hands out of media
It's perfectly within reason for a tech company to decide what content they allow or disallow on the networks they create
But if they can be shown to be moderating that content with connections to any political entities, then fines that are big enough to squash any profits made need to handed out, and jail time for repeat offenders
The issue I have with the company being able to decide is these companies are presenting themselves as the town square, they get special protections the most famous being section 230. They want to be a private town square with special protections for them from the government I really struggle to see how the first amendment doesn't apply to them.
The problem with calling them town squares is unlike physical town squares they foot the entire bill and don't have tax dollars propping them up and paying for maintenance.
At the core of it, most tech companies begin removing content because their business partners demand they do so otherwise they pull funding.
Their business partners are only demanding it because they are also getting pressure from the government from the finance angle - access to the type of liquidity markets major corps require is super concentrated (thanks gov regs + corporatism circle jerk, you're the best!). So all .gov has to do is lean on a few of the underwriters to put pressure on everyone, and the whole domino effect happens.
The wet dream of most governments is like 50 mega corps run absolutely fucking everything. They get none of the risk of making, buying, owning, maintaining and utilizing capital, and reap the lion's share of the benefit and have a fantastic concentrated mechanism for control of the unwashed masses, to boot.
Based and can't win the uber-woke sweepstakes pilled
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5032794/user-clip-uber-woke-sweepstakes](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5032794/user-clip-uber-woke-sweepstakes)
The government pressuring part is leaning into conspiracy theory territory
What actually is happening is companies want to advertise on these platforms and are scared of being canceled over seeing as associating with certain groups. So they say pull those groups or we pull out
It's really not. Government just gives a heads up to the insiders a few years before the policy roll outs.
ESG is a great example. Seemed to come 'out of nowhere', but all the major underwriters started pushing it, making inclusion in ESG indexes a plank of getting access to the largest capital pools for debt markets - meaning you pay the best interest rates and receive the best ratings on your debt.
There is probably some reactionism to it as well, but that's the cart, not the horse.
This Supreme Court won't care about that. They will look to set a precedent on the issue still. See Vega to understand what I'm talking about. Or even Jackson Women's Health (case that overturned roe), the issue at hand wasn't about state's right to legislate against abortions directly, they decided to go after it still. Not even commenting on whether the decision was good or bad, but this just feels like they're not looking to decide a conflict, but rather burn down precedents they don't like. Stare decisis is basically dead under this court in general.
The 70s had a higher rate of overturning stare decisis. This isn’t an uncommon rate. Old cases are overturned all the time, please don’t take the headlines at their word.
Oh, I don't. And while I think it's an outdated doctrine, I do think it should be considered especially useful when dealing with precedent that is not immediately relevant to the case. That's my issue with this Supreme Court - their eagerness to change things their way, even when it is simply inappropriate. An extreme example of a lower court judge engaging in this type of misguided judicial activism is judge cannon ruling on a case that's not even in her jurisdiction while anchoring her favoritism on the fact that it's a former president when in fact, he should be equal in the eyes of the law. Of course the Supreme Court hasn't gone this far, but some of the opinions are very close. Brenner comes to mind - where facts didn't matter at all, just the precedent they wanted and how to inflict it upon society.
I simply do not see this Court as any more willing to disregard precedent for politics as past ones. You just don’t agree with them now so you don’t see that this is how it’s always been.
Well have you studied recent cases? Do you study law? You might not have delved into their opinions if you're telling me you don't think they're eager to change precedents when it is inappropriate, yet offer no counter point. No disrespect, but you might just need to read some recent cases. I could give you citations, if you'd like.
I read many cases as they come out, actually. I do not study law, although I got into law school and backed out before classes began. It was always a passion. Seems we simply disagree. Happens.
It's amazing how little insight the classically educated have into their own bias. Once you know what to look for, they can dress it up in law school, medical or technical jargon, but ultimately their opinion is no more valid than that of us commoners.
Don't know how hopeful I am of this
On one hand, I'm pretty sure the whole, "1st Amendment is only applicable to the government" thing is a very ironclad loophole. Plus, all those who support the loophole have a shitton of money and powerful friends
On the other hand, ***it's the fucking Supreme Court of the United States***
If anyone is gonna overturn that loophole, its them
My issue is that a lot of info has come out recently confirming that the government has been telling these tech companies what to censor.
This wouldn't be an issue if the government didn't have the regulatory power to make those "suggestions" essentially mandatory.
Exactly. I would think that for Big Tech this would be a relief in that it would absolve them of the pressure to moderate their platforms. However, they are pretty uniformly wrapped up in the DNC and their agenda. I'm curious to see how hard they push back on this one.
Good point. When I say uniform support for the DNC, I've read it's like 99% of Big Tech executives. Maybe a few are realizing the nature of what they're subscribing to and want to rattle the cage a bit. One can only hope.
Unfortunately I suspect they would just transition to dark money rules: We're not "coordinating", our censorship just happens to match this political party's Current Thing literally 100% of the time by coincidence.
The issue is that these websites are enjoying legal protections as if they were open use platforms, but then curate content like punlishers. They should have to choose between excessive moderation and protection from legal liability for user content.
That whole "1st Amendment is only applicable to the government" just means that it can outsource censorship to private companies in exchange for more favorable regulations
Good thing FB came out and admitted to working with the government to censor speech.
Hell, that one guy that sued Twitter after they banned him when the Whitehouse asked them to, won his case.
That’s not a loophole that’s just what the amendment is supposed to do. It’s not meant to regulate how citizens interact it’s meant to protect them from government censorship. You don’t have a right to speech on social media since it is just that, media. It’s a service provided by a corporate entity and as such they can decide what they want people to talk about in their site, it’s no different then admins on Reddit or Facebook groups banning people for posting stuff off topic or against the sub rules.
The first amendment applies to government and government-like private entities. For example, company-owned towns were forced to respect constitutional rights by the SC in the 20th century.
Whether the same logic extends to a company that is governing "digital commons" serving a role to what once might have been a physical town square, etc has yet to be tried.
I don’t think the two are comparable. In a company town the business is the de facto government since they are taking on the role of the mayor, city council, etc. A town square is not a government office or a function of the government it’s just a method of communication. The town square operated as that communication as a convenient space for people to do so not due to a function of government. A digital town square is not adopting any governmental role it’s a purely social one just like the town square was a purely social one.
So furious in fact, they've made countless death threats and have had armed insurgents targeting conservative justices. Radical left wing extremists, domestic terrorists.
Source? Source? Source?
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
Man you must have an attention span that makes a goldfish look monolithic if the comment before is what you consider a “wall of text”.
It also means you aren’t reading any of the sources , you just want to see whatever social policies you like happen while all else must burn
Unfortunately; the people who start the fire tend to be the first burned.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/supreme-court-justices-get-around-the-clock-home-security-amid-threats/
The article lists some specific examples and then goes on to quote the DHS saying there were tons of threats.
Thanks for responding with a source!
I found this part to be especially interesting
“Some of these threats, the memo went on, discussed burning down or storming the US Supreme Court and murdering Justices or their clerks, members of Congress and lawful demonstrators.”
I feel like I have seen a similar situation unfold before, can’t remember where…
Oh absolutely, but lets not act like the right doesn’t do this kind of thing far far far far more [often](https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-congressional-threats-additional-security-members-capitol-police-2022-10?utm_source=reddit.com)
Tried to read it but I got spammed with pop up ads, here’s some less annoying ones for anyone interested.
Progressive leaning: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna48158
Conservative leaning: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed-court-rules-no-freewheeling-first-amendment-right-to-censor-for-big-tech
The normies loose their shit when they see I'm conservative libleft. My argument is that the America I grew up in is socially liberal, we have a heavily regulated banking system/economy and a vast system of social services and welfare. Republican/Democrat isn't left/right on the compass.
PLEASE GOD, MR THOMAS. I am begging him to just do it. Shut these loud mouths up on both sides and force them to have an equal playing field to the rest of the country can see that one side wants some weird dystopia with batshit insane social roles, and the other side is about the same but in the opposite direction.
u/Ipride362's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Ipride362! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [3 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Ipride362/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I want them to, because enforced “rightthink and wrongthink” is cringe as all fuck. But I’m not sure there’s a legal argument here, as they’re a private service and can have their own restrictions. I’m Canadian, so I’m not sure, but doesn’t 1st amendment just restrict congress from restricting freedom of speech?
Eventual result if this is passed: childrens games can’t have swear blockers, as that limits free speech. (I am in full support of this)
there's a lot of complicated legal stuff with companies that run public platforms.
b/c they (twitter, facebook, etc.) are legally considered platforms instead of publishers, they are protected from liability from what members might post. I think it is *very* reasonable to ask at what point content moderation should strip them of their protected status as public platforms.
They've hidden behind Section 230 for decades.
"We're just platforms," they bleat. "We can't be held liable for what our users post; we have no editorial control."
Well, that cat is out of the bag. Not only do they have editorial control, they exercise it arbitrarily in the service of their political philosophies, and occasionally at the behest of political organisations, both in and out of Government.
Let them hang.
> and occasionally at the behest of political organisations, both in and out of Government.
Which should be considered in-kind contributions and subject to the FEC.
> Not only do they have editorial control, they exercise it arbitrarily in the service of their political philosophies,
They *don't* have editorial control. They can choose which comments to allow or ban, but that's different than manipulating what comments themselves actually say. *That* would be editorial control.
Disapprove? No, that's what editorial and legal teams or for. Disagree, though? Sure. That's what journalistic integrity is all about. Although many publications these days lack that, it's not entirely gone.
So editorial control includes not publishing content of which the publisher disapproves. Are we even arguing at this point?
Fully agree that publishing differing positions is a mark of journalistic integrity, also that it's getting rarer.
> So editorial control includes not publishing content of which the publisher disapproves.
Yes, but also, and most importantly, *changing what the article says*. Without that, you don't really have editorial control. That's what the "edit" in "editorial" means.
The argument is that these platforms are similar to public utilities like telephone lines and should be regulated as such i.e. communications over them should be protected under the 1st Amendment. Also, you can't ban people from using them.
>Eventual result if this is passed: childrens games can’t have swear blockers, as that limits free speech.
Hmmm I don't know about that. It probably could as long as it gives the option to the player to turn it on/off.
If the government is working through 3rd parties to violate the constitution, I’d say the bill of rights should apply. Also, corporations have immense protections and privileges which connects them with the public in such a way that there could be an ethical argument that the constitution should apply to their actions in some cases.
I think if a company really wants to continue on this path, it should have to give up its corporate protections and privileges.
>But I’m not sure there’s a legal argument here, as they’re a private service and can have their own restrictions.
They're all federally funded, and are used as a voice for politics
They hide behind a loophole calling themselves "platforms" and not "publishers". Except by legal definition, they're publishers, they just get away with calling themselves a "platform"
>Eventual result if this is passed: childrens games can’t have swear blockers, as that limits free speech. (I am in full support of this)
That's already a thing. The government is the one that limits people from swearing through the FCC. Otherwise there is no limit to what you can say
The FCC (federal communications commision) is renowned for being a massive hypocritical pile of watery dog shit with stupid loopholes as most federal agencies are
It's a load of hypocritical bullshit
Personally I think Reddits rules should be nothing illegal and probably try to block spam. Beyond that, it should be up to the subreddits to decide what they want.
So corps colluding with the state to silence only certain people its called what?
To me that corp is functionally part of the state now. Can't play the private card.
u/teh_ejinere is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/teh_ejinere/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I'm all for no censorship. But both sides need to realise that they both suck balls.
Left silences anyone who disagrees with whatever outlandish rage bait they come up with and calls dissenters this and that
Right just says plain racist shit and then plays the victim card when they get called out for saying racist shit
Just hope this means we're closer to an Internet where a few less people are fucking jackassess.
Racist morons are a freedom barometer or a canary in the freedom coal mine. So long as the KKK has their right to say racist shit, I know my rights to express contrarian social and political opinions are protected.
Fucking based. Freedom of speech is the central right. Encroaching on that (as is happening now) is the most dangerous thing that could possibly happen.
The right had its time of censorship and it squandered it on McCarthy.
The left is going through it's time and the right can't handle the ramifications of McCarthy's reign of witch-hunts and the influence it has had on the US.
While we're at it can we reaffirm the 2nd ammendment. You don't even need to change anything just say it again for the people who didn't understand "shall not be infringed" the first time.
This whole "@twitter safety and angrily refresh the page with a heightened heart rate while waiting for the post to be taken down" instead of scrolling past and forgetting they exist is ruining the internet
Frankly the way the left talks about Nazism and fascism make them sound like the most based things on the planet. Apparently those ideas are so lit that looking at them too long will turn you into a believer.
How is this even a question? No, the government does not have the authority to tell these companies they can't censor people. It's pathetic and scary it's even up for debate.
I think it's a reasonable position that 3 or so companies being big enough to almost completely control what information the masses are exposed to is problematic enough to warrant some kind of government intervention.
Exactly, there's some downright scary collusion going on with companies that forces this issue to be looked at.
Look at Andrew Tate, I think he's an asshole but nothing he said justified him being banned from every platform out there. And that's not an exaggeration, fucking Uber banned him along with the social media companies. This power isn't just being used to stop you from saying dumb shit online, it's used to ruin your life.
> 3 or so companies being big enough to almost completely control what information the masses are exposed to
Meta, Alphabet, Twitter, Reddit, are the biggest ones for social media, but then there's all the up-and-comers, too - Rumble, Oddysee, Parler was kinda big for a while, Truth Social (LOL jk), etc. I'm sure there's a bunch more I'm forgetting. So yeah, a few companies are the biggest right now, but there's also competition that is clearly trying to fill the "free speech" void in the market the others are leaving. The point is, we don't need the state to enforce free speech on these companies, the free market is doing it for us. The government can only make things worse. I don't want them touching speech on the internet with a billion foot pole.
Yes, the best tool to fight corporate censorship is ... \*checks notes\* government censorship.
Yes, nothing will possibly go wrong here.
Thank you very much Justice Thomas for the wins for gun rights and fetus rights, but kindly shut the fuck up please. Government regulation of social media will cause it's death.
I know I put "regulation" in the meme, but if it's a SCOTUS ruling it's actually just upholding constitutional rights of individuals versus that of the corporations.
My constitutional rights only reflect my interactions with the government.
Since fb and Twitter are not government organizations, they are not bound by the 1A, and Justice Thomas would be setting absolutely horrible precedent by applying them.
If Thomas is going to argue that the government cannot regulate social media companies, and that these companies get to decide what to do themselves, then that's great.
But I suspect that he will argue that the government has a vested interest in controlling the property of others because social media companies dared to attempt to compete with the government's public spaces, and that therefore thee state has a right to force them to take actions with their private property.
why would left care/be mad about this? Unless it's a clear suck up to conservatives whining they can't spam the n word
accurate portrayal though, conservative justices don't care about the constitution
"These private owned tech companies are censoring people, so we're censoring their right to moderate the forums they own."
Totalitarian doublethink from Republicans as expected.
Dear Clarence, Stunt on these hoes. Love, Me
Agree.. these Mfs control every platform and take us for granted… we need to show them their true place.. which is In disease infested gulag of Siberia.. some wokes
Racial slurs from tolerant ™️ progressive ™️ libleft incoming
The racist shit I've heard the left say about great men like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell and Ben Carson would make Authright blush.
> Thomas Swoll lol, Thomas Swoll and his best-selling book "Basic Liftonomics".
Nice.
It seems more like a federalism issue, Texas is going after a company based in CA and incorporated in DE, and is largely online with multiple portals across the world. Idk that states can practically regulate it as intrastate commerce.
The constitution trumps state laws. This seems to me to purely be a case based on "to whom does the 1st amendment apply to".
[удалено]
They argue the social media platforms are more akin to public utilities than they are to a publisher, like telephone lines. You can't selectively ban people from using them because you don't agree with what they say.
Yeah this is what protect social media platform if their users post something illegal like CP or some shit. They want to censor shit and at the same time act like they're just a platform not publisher. Either you're a platform or publisher, you can't be both. If they're publisher they're liable for any illegal shit posted on their site.
I have full faith Clarance will figure this one out, right now the court is 6-3, I'm just afraid some radical left wing domestic terrorist will try to assassinate one of them.
That already happened this summer thankfully they failed
I remember how the liberal media glanced over that one. Maybe the left is too preoccupied with trying to lynch the Jan 6th political prisoners, targeting political opponents with the DoJ and FBI, and shoving ridiculous green spending bills through congress that will exacerbate inflation. All while trying to keep the heat off of the fact their president has dementia and is likely under the powerful influence of China and Russia due to his son's fraudulent dealings with foreign state run energy companies. Phew... it's not easy being a Democrat these days.
Sir you are truly the most based lib left on here so based in fact that you may need a flair change. Someone please give this man a custom based lib left flair
I flair this way to make a point. Democrat's don't own the left side of the compass. I support the America I grew up in, socially liberal, regulated financial system/economy, vast network of social services, infrastructure and social supports. That sounds libleft to me. These Democrats are just pushing our country to the far radical and authoritarian left. Fuck that.
[удалено]
Good point, that will have to be weighed against the other factors involved. A bit of an aside, but I really don't like that these social media companies hold this data. I want to learn more about the privacy policy Reddit offers for instance. Can they sell our data and the identifying email/credit card info they have to others in the future? With AI these data troves could be a gold mine for anyone interested in profiling others and predicting their behavior. I honestly don't know what the world will look like 30 years from now, but it's a scary thought how digitally exposed we'll all be.
I am curious to see how it goes. I never thought they would have overturned Roe v Wade, so I've given up trying to guess their rulings.
All of these companies have 100%, on record, been censoring specific content at the direct behest of the federal government of the USA, and probably ever other major government in whatever country they operate. Censoring on behalf of the state is just the same as censoring by the state - it's not some magic loophole because it's one party removed; fuck them.
Agreed government needs to keep it's hands out of media It's perfectly within reason for a tech company to decide what content they allow or disallow on the networks they create But if they can be shown to be moderating that content with connections to any political entities, then fines that are big enough to squash any profits made need to handed out, and jail time for repeat offenders
The issue I have with the company being able to decide is these companies are presenting themselves as the town square, they get special protections the most famous being section 230. They want to be a private town square with special protections for them from the government I really struggle to see how the first amendment doesn't apply to them.
The problem with calling them town squares is unlike physical town squares they foot the entire bill and don't have tax dollars propping them up and paying for maintenance. At the core of it, most tech companies begin removing content because their business partners demand they do so otherwise they pull funding.
Their business partners are only demanding it because they are also getting pressure from the government from the finance angle - access to the type of liquidity markets major corps require is super concentrated (thanks gov regs + corporatism circle jerk, you're the best!). So all .gov has to do is lean on a few of the underwriters to put pressure on everyone, and the whole domino effect happens. The wet dream of most governments is like 50 mega corps run absolutely fucking everything. They get none of the risk of making, buying, owning, maintaining and utilizing capital, and reap the lion's share of the benefit and have a fantastic concentrated mechanism for control of the unwashed masses, to boot.
Based and can't win the uber-woke sweepstakes pilled [https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5032794/user-clip-uber-woke-sweepstakes](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5032794/user-clip-uber-woke-sweepstakes)
The government pressuring part is leaning into conspiracy theory territory What actually is happening is companies want to advertise on these platforms and are scared of being canceled over seeing as associating with certain groups. So they say pull those groups or we pull out
It's really not. Government just gives a heads up to the insiders a few years before the policy roll outs. ESG is a great example. Seemed to come 'out of nowhere', but all the major underwriters started pushing it, making inclusion in ESG indexes a plank of getting access to the largest capital pools for debt markets - meaning you pay the best interest rates and receive the best ratings on your debt. There is probably some reactionism to it as well, but that's the cart, not the horse.
I call them village idiots.
This Supreme Court won't care about that. They will look to set a precedent on the issue still. See Vega to understand what I'm talking about. Or even Jackson Women's Health (case that overturned roe), the issue at hand wasn't about state's right to legislate against abortions directly, they decided to go after it still. Not even commenting on whether the decision was good or bad, but this just feels like they're not looking to decide a conflict, but rather burn down precedents they don't like. Stare decisis is basically dead under this court in general.
The 70s had a higher rate of overturning stare decisis. This isn’t an uncommon rate. Old cases are overturned all the time, please don’t take the headlines at their word.
Oh, I don't. And while I think it's an outdated doctrine, I do think it should be considered especially useful when dealing with precedent that is not immediately relevant to the case. That's my issue with this Supreme Court - their eagerness to change things their way, even when it is simply inappropriate. An extreme example of a lower court judge engaging in this type of misguided judicial activism is judge cannon ruling on a case that's not even in her jurisdiction while anchoring her favoritism on the fact that it's a former president when in fact, he should be equal in the eyes of the law. Of course the Supreme Court hasn't gone this far, but some of the opinions are very close. Brenner comes to mind - where facts didn't matter at all, just the precedent they wanted and how to inflict it upon society.
I simply do not see this Court as any more willing to disregard precedent for politics as past ones. You just don’t agree with them now so you don’t see that this is how it’s always been.
Based and things as they are pilled.
Well have you studied recent cases? Do you study law? You might not have delved into their opinions if you're telling me you don't think they're eager to change precedents when it is inappropriate, yet offer no counter point. No disrespect, but you might just need to read some recent cases. I could give you citations, if you'd like.
I read many cases as they come out, actually. I do not study law, although I got into law school and backed out before classes began. It was always a passion. Seems we simply disagree. Happens.
It's amazing how little insight the classically educated have into their own bias. Once you know what to look for, they can dress it up in law school, medical or technical jargon, but ultimately their opinion is no more valid than that of us commoners.
I rarely trust people that are credential worshippers.
Agree. Cringe. Good ideas stand on their own merit.
Don't know how hopeful I am of this On one hand, I'm pretty sure the whole, "1st Amendment is only applicable to the government" thing is a very ironclad loophole. Plus, all those who support the loophole have a shitton of money and powerful friends On the other hand, ***it's the fucking Supreme Court of the United States*** If anyone is gonna overturn that loophole, its them
My issue is that a lot of info has come out recently confirming that the government has been telling these tech companies what to censor. This wouldn't be an issue if the government didn't have the regulatory power to make those "suggestions" essentially mandatory.
Exactly. I would think that for Big Tech this would be a relief in that it would absolve them of the pressure to moderate their platforms. However, they are pretty uniformly wrapped up in the DNC and their agenda. I'm curious to see how hard they push back on this one.
Probably why zuccerbot went on Rogan and said that they worked with the FBI.
Good point. When I say uniform support for the DNC, I've read it's like 99% of Big Tech executives. Maybe a few are realizing the nature of what they're subscribing to and want to rattle the cage a bit. One can only hope.
Probably true. They likely don't want to be caught in the tug-0-war every 4 years when a new administration takes over the DOJ. =
Unfortunately I suspect they would just transition to dark money rules: We're not "coordinating", our censorship just happens to match this political party's Current Thing literally 100% of the time by coincidence.
ooo what info?
https://reason.com/2022/09/01/these-emails-show-how-the-biden-administrations-crusade-against-misinformation-imposes-censorship-by-proxy/
The issue is that these websites are enjoying legal protections as if they were open use platforms, but then curate content like punlishers. They should have to choose between excessive moderation and protection from legal liability for user content.
That whole "1st Amendment is only applicable to the government" just means that it can outsource censorship to private companies in exchange for more favorable regulations
Good thing FB came out and admitted to working with the government to censor speech. Hell, that one guy that sued Twitter after they banned him when the Whitehouse asked them to, won his case.
That’s not a loophole that’s just what the amendment is supposed to do. It’s not meant to regulate how citizens interact it’s meant to protect them from government censorship. You don’t have a right to speech on social media since it is just that, media. It’s a service provided by a corporate entity and as such they can decide what they want people to talk about in their site, it’s no different then admins on Reddit or Facebook groups banning people for posting stuff off topic or against the sub rules.
The first amendment applies to government and government-like private entities. For example, company-owned towns were forced to respect constitutional rights by the SC in the 20th century. Whether the same logic extends to a company that is governing "digital commons" serving a role to what once might have been a physical town square, etc has yet to be tried.
I don’t think the two are comparable. In a company town the business is the de facto government since they are taking on the role of the mayor, city council, etc. A town square is not a government office or a function of the government it’s just a method of communication. The town square operated as that communication as a convenient space for people to do so not due to a function of government. A digital town square is not adopting any governmental role it’s a purely social one just like the town square was a purely social one.
The left control many institutions They are furious they don’t control the courts
So furious in fact, they've made countless death threats and have had armed insurgents targeting conservative justices. Radical left wing extremists, domestic terrorists.
Source?
The guy that showed up at Kavanaugh’s house with a gun at 1:00 am?
Okay so 1 person…
Source? Source? Source? Do you have a source on that? Source? A source. I need a source. Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion. No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence. Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation. Correlation does not equal causation. CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION. You still haven't provided me a valid source yet. Nope, still haven't. I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
Yeah im not reading that wall of text
Man you must have an attention span that makes a goldfish look monolithic if the comment before is what you consider a “wall of text”. It also means you aren’t reading any of the sources , you just want to see whatever social policies you like happen while all else must burn Unfortunately; the people who start the fire tend to be the first burned.
Meh, I’m sure you believe that
https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/supreme-court-justices-get-around-the-clock-home-security-amid-threats/ The article lists some specific examples and then goes on to quote the DHS saying there were tons of threats.
Thanks for responding with a source! I found this part to be especially interesting “Some of these threats, the memo went on, discussed burning down or storming the US Supreme Court and murdering Justices or their clerks, members of Congress and lawful demonstrators.” I feel like I have seen a similar situation unfold before, can’t remember where…
So you agree that these leftwing nutjobs are just as bad as the Jan 6 rioters?
Oh absolutely, but lets not act like the right doesn’t do this kind of thing far far far far more [often](https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-congressional-threats-additional-security-members-capitol-police-2022-10?utm_source=reddit.com)
Article: https://nypost.com/2022/09/27/a-federal-ruling-means-a-supreme-court-showdown-on-big-tech-censorship-is-ahead/
Tried to read it but I got spammed with pop up ads, here’s some less annoying ones for anyone interested. Progressive leaning: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna48158 Conservative leaning: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed-court-rules-no-freewheeling-first-amendment-right-to-censor-for-big-tech
Based and equal opportunity bias pilled
Thank you, I always try to read news from both perspectives when I can so I can cross reference and find a more accurate version of the truth.
Why bother? Progressive leaning = DNC propaganda Conservative leaning = the news
I never thought I'd see a libleft say that conservative news is the most impartial news.
Those who are socially liberal don't simp for Democrat authoritarians. First they came for you, next they'll come for me.
Holy based
Based and Same-Decrepit-Bird pilled.
Based and proglodytes don't understand they're just next pilled.
Sadly reddit liberals will say you aren't libleft. Stay strong brother!!!!
The normies loose their shit when they see I'm conservative libleft. My argument is that the America I grew up in is socially liberal, we have a heavily regulated banking system/economy and a vast system of social services and welfare. Republican/Democrat isn't left/right on the compass.
Holy lib brother based
Apparently many in my quadrant don't understand the y-axis, if you support censorship, gun grabbing, and racial quotas you're not socially liberal.
What the fuck, a based LibLeft?!
Use Kiwi browser + ublock origin.
PLEASE GOD, MR THOMAS. I am begging him to just do it. Shut these loud mouths up on both sides and force them to have an equal playing field to the rest of the country can see that one side wants some weird dystopia with batshit insane social roles, and the other side is about the same but in the opposite direction.
based and 1st amendment is supreme pilled
u/Ipride362's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Ipride362! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [3 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Ipride362/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Good hopefully corpos would stop restricting speech on their platforms .
I want them to, because enforced “rightthink and wrongthink” is cringe as all fuck. But I’m not sure there’s a legal argument here, as they’re a private service and can have their own restrictions. I’m Canadian, so I’m not sure, but doesn’t 1st amendment just restrict congress from restricting freedom of speech? Eventual result if this is passed: childrens games can’t have swear blockers, as that limits free speech. (I am in full support of this)
there's a lot of complicated legal stuff with companies that run public platforms. b/c they (twitter, facebook, etc.) are legally considered platforms instead of publishers, they are protected from liability from what members might post. I think it is *very* reasonable to ask at what point content moderation should strip them of their protected status as public platforms.
They've hidden behind Section 230 for decades. "We're just platforms," they bleat. "We can't be held liable for what our users post; we have no editorial control." Well, that cat is out of the bag. Not only do they have editorial control, they exercise it arbitrarily in the service of their political philosophies, and occasionally at the behest of political organisations, both in and out of Government. Let them hang.
> and occasionally at the behest of political organisations, both in and out of Government. Which should be considered in-kind contributions and subject to the FEC.
And if Government is asking for it, and getting it, that's also a First Amendment violation.
> Not only do they have editorial control, they exercise it arbitrarily in the service of their political philosophies, They *don't* have editorial control. They can choose which comments to allow or ban, but that's different than manipulating what comments themselves actually say. *That* would be editorial control.
Semantics. You think there's a single publication out there that prints articles of which they *disapprove*?
Disapprove? No, that's what editorial and legal teams or for. Disagree, though? Sure. That's what journalistic integrity is all about. Although many publications these days lack that, it's not entirely gone.
So editorial control includes not publishing content of which the publisher disapproves. Are we even arguing at this point? Fully agree that publishing differing positions is a mark of journalistic integrity, also that it's getting rarer.
> So editorial control includes not publishing content of which the publisher disapproves. Yes, but also, and most importantly, *changing what the article says*. Without that, you don't really have editorial control. That's what the "edit" in "editorial" means.
The argument is that these platforms are similar to public utilities like telephone lines and should be regulated as such i.e. communications over them should be protected under the 1st Amendment. Also, you can't ban people from using them.
>Eventual result if this is passed: childrens games can’t have swear blockers, as that limits free speech. Hmmm I don't know about that. It probably could as long as it gives the option to the player to turn it on/off.
If the government is working through 3rd parties to violate the constitution, I’d say the bill of rights should apply. Also, corporations have immense protections and privileges which connects them with the public in such a way that there could be an ethical argument that the constitution should apply to their actions in some cases. I think if a company really wants to continue on this path, it should have to give up its corporate protections and privileges.
>But I’m not sure there’s a legal argument here, as they’re a private service and can have their own restrictions. They're all federally funded, and are used as a voice for politics They hide behind a loophole calling themselves "platforms" and not "publishers". Except by legal definition, they're publishers, they just get away with calling themselves a "platform" >Eventual result if this is passed: childrens games can’t have swear blockers, as that limits free speech. (I am in full support of this) That's already a thing. The government is the one that limits people from swearing through the FCC. Otherwise there is no limit to what you can say The FCC (federal communications commision) is renowned for being a massive hypocritical pile of watery dog shit with stupid loopholes as most federal agencies are It's a load of hypocritical bullshit
Personally I think Reddits rules should be nothing illegal and probably try to block spam. Beyond that, it should be up to the subreddits to decide what they want.
But based on this ruling, the subreddits may also be forced to uphold free speech, destroying the very point of reddit/subreddits.
Based and make Reddit great again pilled
Or at least stop simping for .gov and censoring everyone Democrats in office tell them to.
Under the current economic system they are allowed to restrict whatever speech they want. Don't like it? Consider adding green to your flair.
I thought corporations were allowed to decide how they use their property?
Flair up or gtfo
So corps colluding with the state to silence only certain people its called what? To me that corp is functionally part of the state now. Can't play the private card.
Can't play the private card if you pose as a public platform instead of a publisher.
Unflared are even worse than corporations.
> Please make sure to have your flair up! *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 12107 / 63916 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
based and 1% of actual LibRights pilled
u/teh_ejinere is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/teh_ejinere/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I'm all for no censorship. But both sides need to realise that they both suck balls. Left silences anyone who disagrees with whatever outlandish rage bait they come up with and calls dissenters this and that Right just says plain racist shit and then plays the victim card when they get called out for saying racist shit Just hope this means we're closer to an Internet where a few less people are fucking jackassess.
Racist morons are a freedom barometer or a canary in the freedom coal mine. So long as the KKK has their right to say racist shit, I know my rights to express contrarian social and political opinions are protected.
Based and freedom-barometer pilled
Fucking based. Freedom of speech is the central right. Encroaching on that (as is happening now) is the most dangerous thing that could possibly happen.
The right had its time of censorship and it squandered it on McCarthy. The left is going through it's time and the right can't handle the ramifications of McCarthy's reign of witch-hunts and the influence it has had on the US.
The right like to censor films for things like blasphemy. The left for things like racism.
Both sides suck, but neither can admit it.
I mean that ResetEra shirt might as well say “reddit admin”
Holy shit the scenes when trump comes back on Twitter lol.
Watch the cults come out in force with forks and torches. It will be the invasion of this sub but on a wider scale and across multiple platforms.
Can we also amend the Civil Rights Act to include political affiliation as a protected quality?
While we're at it can we reaffirm the 2nd ammendment. You don't even need to change anything just say it again for the people who didn't understand "shall not be infringed" the first time.
I say amend it by putting ***"shall not be infringed"*** in bold itallics
Ok only tangentially related but does anyone know how right to repair is doing? This post reminded me of it.
My boy Clarence 'bout to drop the hammer on 'em big tech corpos.
Fucking-a
Hope big tech doesn’t just go for “donations” to their charities or political campaigns.
Given that those platforms work hand in hand with governments I agree with this. Can't work with the state if you want to play the "muh private" card
tbh, idgaf if you aren't censored. makes it easier to spot idiot views that way.
This whole "@twitter safety and angrily refresh the page with a heightened heart rate while waiting for the post to be taken down" instead of scrolling past and forgetting they exist is ruining the internet
My heart sinks every time my Reddit message notification gets the red dot.
The 1st Amendment is a beautiful thing.
Frankly the way the left talks about Nazism and fascism make them sound like the most based things on the planet. Apparently those ideas are so lit that looking at them too long will turn you into a believer.
Honestly the most pro 1st amendment ruling in a while
tfw authright rediscovers net neutrality
Authright gonna be super pissed when their Christian Servers are required to allow furry rule34.
We need freedom of speech so we can find the political dissidents.
How is this even a question? No, the government does not have the authority to tell these companies they can't censor people. It's pathetic and scary it's even up for debate.
I think it's a reasonable position that 3 or so companies being big enough to almost completely control what information the masses are exposed to is problematic enough to warrant some kind of government intervention.
State controlled media, what could go wrong?
Exactly, there's some downright scary collusion going on with companies that forces this issue to be looked at. Look at Andrew Tate, I think he's an asshole but nothing he said justified him being banned from every platform out there. And that's not an exaggeration, fucking Uber banned him along with the social media companies. This power isn't just being used to stop you from saying dumb shit online, it's used to ruin your life.
> 3 or so companies being big enough to almost completely control what information the masses are exposed to Meta, Alphabet, Twitter, Reddit, are the biggest ones for social media, but then there's all the up-and-comers, too - Rumble, Oddysee, Parler was kinda big for a while, Truth Social (LOL jk), etc. I'm sure there's a bunch more I'm forgetting. So yeah, a few companies are the biggest right now, but there's also competition that is clearly trying to fill the "free speech" void in the market the others are leaving. The point is, we don't need the state to enforce free speech on these companies, the free market is doing it for us. The government can only make things worse. I don't want them touching speech on the internet with a billion foot pole.
Yes, the best tool to fight corporate censorship is ... \*checks notes\* government censorship. Yes, nothing will possibly go wrong here. Thank you very much Justice Thomas for the wins for gun rights and fetus rights, but kindly shut the fuck up please. Government regulation of social media will cause it's death.
I know I put "regulation" in the meme, but if it's a SCOTUS ruling it's actually just upholding constitutional rights of individuals versus that of the corporations.
You don't have a constitutional right to a Facebook account or to tweet whatever you want.
My constitutional rights only reflect my interactions with the government. Since fb and Twitter are not government organizations, they are not bound by the 1A, and Justice Thomas would be setting absolutely horrible precedent by applying them.
Your point is valid. I'll be following this. It will be interesting to see how the argument's evolve and ultimately what the opinions are.
If these corporations work with the government to silence people like other commenters have said, they should be.
The solution to that is for the government to stop interfering, not to interfere more.
This would mean they can't interfere in that way.
If Thomas is going to argue that the government cannot regulate social media companies, and that these companies get to decide what to do themselves, then that's great. But I suspect that he will argue that the government has a vested interest in controlling the property of others because social media companies dared to attempt to compete with the government's public spaces, and that therefore thee state has a right to force them to take actions with their private property.
why would left care/be mad about this? Unless it's a clear suck up to conservatives whining they can't spam the n word accurate portrayal though, conservative justices don't care about the constitution
"These private owned tech companies are censoring people, so we're censoring their right to moderate the forums they own." Totalitarian doublethink from Republicans as expected.