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

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,722
    Reaction score
    11,960
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    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.



     
    Last edited:
    I found this Twitter thread very helpful about how it is that I get ads for things my husband likes. It concerns social media in a way, and I didn’t want to make a new thread.

     
    I found this Twitter thread very helpful about how it is that I get ads for things my husband likes. It concerns social media in a way, and I didn’t want to make a new thread.


    Slight aside, but they mentioned it in the thread - if you have an iPhone and it prompts you to ask an app not to track you, don’t let it. If it pisses Facebook off so much, it must be good, right?

    But for real, we have so much out data out there already, control what you can.
     
    I found this Twitter thread very helpful about how it is that I get ads for things my husband likes. It concerns social media in a way, and I didn’t want to make a new thread.


    Is this guy saying that somehow his phone could read his mind or was opening his camera app and looking around the room while he was brushing his teeth?
     
    Hmmm... privacy tech worker...

    You used her wi-fi, Robert.


    .

    He may or may not have used her wi-fi. If I am understanding what he is saying, it wouldn’t matter. What he described doesn’t depend on that.
     
    He may or may not have used her wi-fi. If I am understanding what he is saying, it wouldn’t matter. What he described doesn’t depend on that.

    The first clue is someone who calls himself a "privacy tech worker" receiving ads. Like someone who "works in the medical field" giving medical advice.

    No one is doing GPS triangulation to ad target anybody. The common denominator between families/friends/coworkers is the internet connection they use.
     
    So he is saying that apps track our location through the GPS on our phones. So no the vendors aren’t doing it, the phones are constantly doing it and the big apps (like FB or Twitter) deliver that info to the advertisers. As well as what phones are nearby for extended periods.

    How do you know that doesn’t happen? I myself don’t know, but I do know that my phone’s GPS is always aware of where I am and uses that info all the time. I know that Apple is making a big push to allow people to disable apps from keeping that info on you if you opt out. If nobody is using the GPS info why would they go to that trouble?

    I have also quit using wi-fi when I am not at home or at work. I don’t think that protects me from having apps track my location. It doesn’t.
     
    So he is saying that apps track our location through the GPS on our phones. So no the vendors aren’t doing it, the phones are constantly doing it and the big apps (like FB or Twitter) deliver that info to the advertisers. As well as what phones are nearby for extended periods.

    How do you know that doesn’t happen? I myself don’t know, but I do know that my phone’s GPS is always aware of where I am and uses that info all the time. I know that Apple is making a big push to allow people to disable apps from keeping that info on you if you opt out. If nobody is using the GPS info why would they go to that trouble?

    I have also quit using wi-fi when I am not at home or at work. I don’t think that protects me from having apps track my location. It doesn’t.

    Any application that uses GPS knows your position. That's a given. But GPS triangulation is not why this guy is getting ads for the toothpaste his mother uses - if that is really the case...I mean, just ads for the toothpaste?... and again, to a "privacy tech worker"... I digress.... but if true, It'd be his mom's internet connection and devices attached to that connection that would be targeted.

    Now, retailers could target devices within their stores'/products' range via GPS.

    And believe it or not, it could be a coincidence.
     
    One of our worse justices ever.

    Remember that push by conservatives (the real ones, not Trumpettes) a few years ago that Thomas was actually just a bit misunderstood and actually quite a bright and laudable jurist?

    This kind of written-nonsense, wholly unnecessary concurrence on a highly political but otherwise well-settled issue certainly seems pretty activist to me.
     
    One of our worse justices ever.
    Thomas being a supreme court justice is a slap in the face to everything that Thurgood Marshall stood for and represented. The man doesn't deserve to benefit from Marshall being the first. I'd rather Marshall be "the only" than for Thomas to continue shirtting on Marshall's legacy.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom