Social media and the 1st Amendment (Formerly: Trump seeks to punish Twitter) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Despite Twitter historically granting Trump far more latitude with violations of Twitter terms of service than average members would get, a recent tagging of a Trump tweet with Twitter's fact-checking tool enraged the president. He announced yesterday that he will take retribution via executive order seeking to remove statutory legal protections in place for social media companies, and instructing his executive agencies (the FCC an DOJ) to formulate plans to take legal action against social media companies for "political bias."

A draft of the order has been released . . . and it is troubling to say the least.

According to analysis, the order will "reinterpret" a key provision of the Communications Decency Act (Sec. 230) that previously protected social media companies for responsibility for the content on their sites. That section works by declaring that social media companies are not "publishers" of the content posted by third-party account holders (members) - and it is statutory. The Trump order apparently also instructs the FCC to create regulations to make this new "interpretation" of Sec. 230 actionable against social media companies. In addition, the order apparently instructs the FTC (which is not an executive agency) to report to Congress on "political bias" in social media - and to consider using the reinterpreted Section 230 to bring actions against social media companies for political bias.

Apparently the order also instructs DOJ to work with state AGs to determine what state laws may be used against social media companies for political bias.

So yep, a Republican president is attempting to restructure the statutory framework that has allowed American social media companies - which are private business by the way - to grow into corporate giants without having to be answerable in court for the content posted by their members. And will do so based on the notion that private business should be held to some standard of political neutrality.

Further legal analysis will be needed, but it seems highly suspect on several important grounds (including the fact that Section 230 is statutory and is very explicit - it's not subject to rewrite by executive order). More importantly this idea that "political bias" can be defined and made actionable by federal agencies against private companies seems a patent violation of the First Amendment.

 

[superchuck500]

This is what social media without a 1st Amendment actually looks like:

Thai court gives record 43-year sentence for insulting king

A court in Thailand has sentenced a former civil servant to a record record prison term of 43 years and six months for breaching the country’s strict law on insulting or defaming the monarchy.

www.ksat.com

 

[DaveXA]

This is what social media without a 1st Amendment actually looks like:

Thai court gives record 43-year sentence for insulting king

A court in Thailand has sentenced a former civil servant to a record record prison term of 43 years and six months for breaching the country’s strict law on insulting or defaming the monarchy.

www.ksat.com

Nope, not moving there anytime soon. Yikes!

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

This is what social media without a 1st Amendment actually looks like:

Thai court gives record 43-year sentence for insulting king

A court in Thailand has sentenced a former civil servant to a record record prison term of 43 years and six months for breaching the country’s strict law on insulting or defaming the monarchy.

www.ksat.com

FTC regulating social media?

 

[superchuck500]

FTC regulating social media?

Huh?

 

[coldseat]

This is what social media without a 1st Amendment actually looks like:

Thai court gives record 43-year sentence for insulting king

A court in Thailand has sentenced a former civil servant to a record record prison term of 43 years and six months for breaching the country’s strict law on insulting or defaming the monarchy.

www.ksat.com

That is very true. But we also see what the effects of unrestrained free hate/false/conspiracy theory speech with the help of the internet have done to our country this week. There is a balance to strike here, and I'm not sure where reaching it. The unfettered free speech that we are experiencing today isn't acting as a "release of the pressure valve" of this countries tensions, it's serving as a recruitment and incitement tool by both fringe groups and a mainstream political party. There's a good opinion piece on CNN about this very topic that I was going to start a new discussion on, but it fits nicely in this thread.

Violence at Capitol and beyond reignites debate over America’s defense of extremist speech | CNN

With most Americans hoping this week’s expected inauguration protests look nothing like the Capitol siege, questions emerge about unrestrained free expression, long championed by First Amendment theorists as a benefit to society, no matter how ugly and hateful.

www.cnn.com

Harvard's Seltzer and Donovan say it's time to have new conversations on the absolutist interpretations of the First Amendment, taking into consideration the ways ideas live, grow and motivate others in the technological landscape.

Race and gender scholars point out notions about free speech emanate primarily from scholars and politicians who are overwhelmingly White, Seltzer said: "It's easy for a White male to say, 'Anyone's speech is OK,' and much harder for someone in a minority position who is constantly bombarded with speech telling them they are not equal and who don't have as much access to laws and courts to gain protections."

Those notions also don't account for confirmation bias, a plague of social media wherein people believe disinformation, seek out data supporting it and ignore contradicting information.

"Our First Amendment theory and practice need to be informed by the context and the way humans behave in technological affordances," Seltzer said. "I'm comfortable saying I will defend even hateful speech as long as I can stand up in alliance with those harmed by that speech and do useful things to protect them from the consequences of it."

 

[porculator]

Nope, not moving there anytime soon. Yikes!

You sure? They don't have Covid there

 

[Ayo]

That is very true. But we also see what the effects of unrestrained free hate/false/conspiracy theory speech with the help of the internet have done to our country this week. There is a balance to strike here, and I'm not sure where reaching it. The unfettered free speech that we are experiencing today isn't acting as a "release of the pressure valve" of this countries tensions, it's serving as a recruitment and incitement tool by both fringe groups and a mainstream political party. There's a good opinion piece on CNN about this very topic that I was going to start a new discussion on, but it fits nicely in this thread.

Violence at Capitol and beyond reignites debate over America’s defense of extremist speech | CNN

With most Americans hoping this week’s expected inauguration protests look nothing like the Capitol siege, questions emerge about unrestrained free expression, long championed by First Amendment theorists as a benefit to society, no matter how ugly and hateful.

www.cnn.com

So, my account was banned over at tigerdroppings because I made fun of QAnon. But I can still log in and read there and know a few people who have access to some inner circle stuff. Their was talk - without mentioning any names - about TD being on the radar of some of the internet sleuthing going on. I didn't put a lot of stock into it. Then I saw a post by Chicken (Brian Fiegel, the owner) that said they needed to curtail some of the violent talk on TD because external trolls might use it to make the site look bad.

Immediately I went back to what I'd caught through the grapevine. And it gave me pause. Because they have NEVER done that before. You could post any racist, inflammatory, sexist nonsense and it's fine. It'll get upvoted with a 95+ approval and likes.

I can say that there were reports that went to the FBI regarding people active on that site. I have *NO* idea if it contributed to that particular post and I have no idea what will come of it. But there were FBI reports and flags.

I doubt anything actually happens, but even making those dudes stain their Fruit of the Looms is amusing enough, in and of itself.

 

[The moose]

So, my account was banned over at tigerdroppings because I made fun of QAnon. But I can still log in and read there and know a few people who have access to some inner circle stuff. Their was talk - without mentioning any names - about TD being on the radar of some of the internet sleuthing going on. I didn't put a lot of stock into it. Then I saw a post by Chicken (Brian Fiegel, the owner) that said they needed to curtail some of the violent talk on TD because external trolls might use it to make the site look bad.

Immediately I went back to what I'd caught through the grapevine. And it gave me pause. Because they have NEVER done that before. You could post any racist, inflammatory, sexist nonsense and it's fine. It'll get upvoted with a 95+ approval and likes.

I can say that there were reports that went to the FBI regarding people active on that site. I have *NO* idea if it contributed to that particular post and I have no idea what will come of it. But there were FBI reports and flags.

I doubt anything actually happens, but even making those dudes stain their Fruit of the Looms is amusing enough, in and of itself.

Yep I was thinking the same about that site. They certainly are gonna get a good look out for dangerous idiots. I don't know how many they have but they certainly have plenty to look at.

 

[superchuck500]

A lot of talk about a return of the Fairness Doctrine. Here's insight from a Cato Institute academic who has studied and written about it:

 

[Goatman saint]

There was someone who spotted something about how up to this point social media and hate groups were annoying, but under the previous administration let run. They talked about taking down the deep state and all that. All they have succeeded in doing now is taking that deep state which built up an intelligence network to watch external terrorists and focus it right on them. Social media is going to be a rather uncomfortable place for a while as these people who post this are weeded out and cleaned out. I believe you will also see social media like Facebook and internet entities like Google get the antitrust treatment. They’ve played a little too much and a little too free.

 

[The moose]

A lot of talk about a return of the Fairness Doctrine. Here's insight from a Cato Institute academic who has studied and written about it:

Thanks good read

I don't know what to think about the whole Charles Koch Foundation oops I mean Cato Institute. I know they are non profit think tank thingy. They just happened to be founded and funded by a guy trying to buy everyone to get his way so he can continue to rape the earth for extreme profit.

The other problem I have with Koch is have you ever been to Wichita? I was born there thank god daily that my dad took a transfer out of there. I can't imagine being in the top 25 of the worlds richest and choose to be there or worse outside of there on hundreds of hot flat acres.

The real issue is six corporations own 90% of the media so application of the fairness doctrine or something similar to them should be a walk in the park if you can get past all their money and that is a big if.

Back in the 80's the FCC limited you to forty radio stations not the case now. Hell that would be better for everyone if radio didn't have carbon copies all over the country playing the same exact play lists or pushing the owners political views only thru a thousand stations. Heck maybe music would not be so stagnated.

The social media thing needs to be reeled in. Facebook has proven that to the world. At least the others are trying self regulation. I don't have the answer but someplace in the world is obviously doing better with managing social media than we should research all options.

The Facebook with all all that info grab from people to only sell it so they can target an audience to push a minority opinions has been horrible for the world. The brexit lies allowed that to pass. There is no doubt without facebook it would have not been a contest.

Either they need to put a limit on the info grab so targeting is harder or at least allow the end user to know exactly what is known about them for sale and allow end user the ability to limit what is available.

These are all fixable problems.

I did like the whole part of the posts that Paul called jimmy carter the greatest deregulatory president.

I enjoyed that. While Carter deregulated air travel to make air travel affordable to more people by leaps and bounds was a good thing. Before air travel was staggering in the 70s from NY to LA flight was over fourteen hundred bucks. In an energy crisis it took a bunch of road travel off of american roads and helped in the fuel crisis.

My personal favorite thing Carter deregulated was breweries. Before that we could not home brew that was illegal and we only had a handful of licensed breweries. The whole craft beer industry is a direct result of Carter.

That is the whole thing if you look at both sides of a story you get the answers. If I just read the Carter was the deregulatory guy without looking it up it sounds bad when that is the furthest thing from the truth. It was deregulation that helped the American people. When air line tickets are still over a thousand bucks cheaper almost fifty years later is a win for the american people.

That is a prime example of why we need both sides presented because most are not gonna do the leg work of looking up deregulation under Carter.

And realistically we only need a tiny amount of differing views to make an impact that would get the public thinking about the other side of things.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Pillow guy banned from Twitter
============================
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has remained loyal to former President Donald Trump even as other corporate allies have jumped ship. He followed him in promoting false election conspiracies. He insisted Trump was not to blame for the Capitol riot.

And now, the MyPillow guy has followed him into another ignominy — getting himself, like Trump, permanently banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation.

In a statement to the Associated Press, a spokesperson for Twitter said Lindell was banned for “repeated violations” of the company’s civic integrity policy, though they did not point to a specific tweet that triggered the action.

Lindell has used his account to promote false claims of election fraud since November. His tweets have asked the president to “impose martial law,” called Biden’s victory the “biggest election fraud in history,” and used the days after the insurrection to continue to promote conspiracy theories..................

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is banned from Twitter (msn.com)

 

[porculator]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with all these Twitter bans.

As nice as it is to be without Trump on Twitter, it was better to have the crazies out in the open. They're going to find a stealthier way to communicate and we won't be able to easily know who around us has gone off the deep end.

I would rather have seen the pillow man lose his following after being humiliated in the defamation trial from Dominion, than "big tech" forcing it and making him into a martyr.

 

[wardorican]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with all these Twitter bans.

As nice as it is to be without Trump on Twitter, it was better to have the crazies out in the open. They're going to find a stealthier way to communicate and we won't be able to easily know who around us has gone off the deep end.

I would rather have seen the pillow man lose his following after being humiliated in the defamation trial from Dominion, than "big tech" forcing it and making him into a martyr.

Stealthier ways also means less able.

The problem was the crazy was thrown into the main stream. We saw how bad that was. Good riddance.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with all these Twitter bans.

As nice as it is to be without Trump on Twitter, it was better to have the crazies out in the open. They're going to find a stealthier way to communicate and we won't be able to easily know who around us has gone off the deep end.

I would rather have seen the pillow man lose his following after being humiliated in the defamation trial from Dominion, than "big tech" forcing it and making him into a martyr.

I see your point and agree with it to an extent but I think on the whole it's better for these people to be banished to the shadows

When the crazies see how many other crazies out there share their same views it just feeds on itself and grows exponentially

And someone who would never otherwise be exposed to the crazy in the shadows now is and becomes consumed by it
Someone who ignores the crazy right wing guy ranting outside the crazy right wing bookstore is open to it on Twitter

QAnon, Jan 6th (and maybe trumpism as a whole) doesn't exist/happen without social media

 

[CoolBrees]

It’s a private company. They can kick anyone out that violates their TOS. The government shouldn’t be involved at all.

 

[porculator]

I see your point and agree with it to an extent but I think on the whole it's better for these people to be banished to the shadows

When the crazies see how many other crazies out there share their same views it just feeds on itself and grows exponentially

And someone who would never otherwise be exposed to the crazy in the shadows now is and becomes consumed by it
Someone who ignores the crazy right wing guy ranting outside the crazy right wing bookstore is open to it on Twitter

QAnon, Jan 6th (and maybe trumpism as a whole) doesn't exist/happen without social media

Yea I can't disagree with any of that. I just have this uneasy feeling that we're creating a monster here, we just don't know in what form yet.

The one good thing is that in general, those that are completely detached from reality aren't very good at crafting a solution for their predicament.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I have always been confused how people consider Facebook, Twitter, etc as legit media sites.
Banning people from Twitter is no different than Andrus banning people on SR. I have ZERO doubt that if Trump was a member of SR, he would have been banned a long time ago.