4 ms·

Twitter and social media don't want that door opened. It will almost certainly subject them to strong regulations. I guarantee conservative/maga types like Rog

Twitter and social media don't want that door opened. It will almost certainly subject them to strong regulations. I guarantee conservative/maga types like Roger Stone who have been banned from Twitter will sue, since they would have a right to comment on Official Tweets. The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. Twitter is a private platform selective in what users it allows to participate, which is their right as a private company. I personally find this article distasteful, as Net Neutrality is about to be lost, and the EFF is publishing stuff about Tweets. Its time like these, where I'm convinced the EFF needs to be replaced by a more aggressive Organization dedicated to protecting our civil liberties from things like PRISM and protecting Net Neutrality. What the point in a worthless battle/distraction(Trump can just drop twitter), when we are in the middle of a larger war (NN) ?

andy_ppp 9y ago
IMO it’s not about if Twitter is a private space or not it’s about government officials using it as a public space to inform the public. Government officials blocking people clearly does infringe on their first amendment right to be informed even though Twitter isn’t public. The article even points out that if I hold a public press briefing (on private property or not) you can’t stop journalists you don’t like from attending or asking questions. This is the same thing with Twitter; they are fine to have their own rules about blocking people but as soon as government people are using this forum in a public sense their tweets become protected in a way you or me blocking someone doesn’t. To take this even further, if I have a private property and I ban you from it that’s fine, you don’t have a right to be there. But if I’m holding public events on private property you have a right to be able to at least hear what’s being said and maybe even organise a protest against it. At least that’s the way I read the arguments put forward in the article anyway...
spsful 9y ago
I read somewhere that even the NSA didn't call their program PRISM when they used it.. so officials could honestly say they didn't know what you were talking about when you mentioned PRISM. Interesting, no?
c22 9y ago
It's not entirely pointless. The status quo is that all internet sites are private platforms. If the case can be made that some parts of the internet work as "public squares" than the argument for a neutral internet is much stronger.
mc32 9y ago
Comprehensive net neutrality would presumably also include edge service providers (ie, platforms), since they are potential gatekeepers regarding who can post bits and who can't post bits on their sites.
saas_co_de 9y ago
> The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. right. this lawsuit is most likely going nowhere because it would require an incredibly expansive interpretation of free speech rights with far ranging consequences.
indubitable 9y ago
Indeed, I think so many don't really consider the consequences of their actions. If this lawsuit is successful on the desired basis that private companies operating semi-open platforms are legally deemed as "Public Forum" then that is a huge game changer for everything. I have an extremely positive view of the EFF, but in this case it really looks like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. A key statement in the article is, "It’s the president’s (and other officials’) use of Twitter that is subject to the First Amendment, not Twitter itself." Yet their entire argument states quite the opposite - that this entire thing is contingent on Twitter being defined as a sort of legally defined Forum for discussion so that first amendment law is applicable. That categorization most certainly has major implications for Twitter and all major social media for that matter. The thing about issues like net neutrality and the NSA is that, so far, they've covered their legal bases. I think dedicating legal resources to something, that the organization itself presumably has no expectation of a positive ability to influence, would be a far greater travesty than pursuing something where they believe they can effect positive change. The EFF, for how much they do, are incredibly small and underfunded -- they have to pick their fights.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Yet their entire argument states quite the opposite - that this entire thing is contingent on Twitter being defined as a sort of legally defined Forum for discussion so that first amendment law is applicable. That categorization most certainly has major implications for Twitter and all major social media for that matter. IANAL, but I don't think there's such thing as a binary test of whether a place is subject to the First Amendment or not. It's always applicable in a specific context - here being the restrictions that the government can apply to the public, nothing else. They gave the example of Television, saying that the government can't block specific viewers from seeing it - yet that doesn't make TV channels a sort of public square, where they have to allow anyone to make their statements. It's only a restriction on the government.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    This is the core piece of the article's argument: "In creating social media accounts with these communication features, like a Facebook page with a comments section, or a Twitter account that permits tagging and replies, the government endows the public with First Amendment rights to speak in these forums. The First Amendment forbids viewpoint-based speech restrictions like those that result from blocking. The legal doctrine that applies here is the same one that is used to determine the government’s ability to regulate speech in government-controlled places or programs—the Forum Doctrine. [1][2] Essentially, government-controlled forums for speech are divided into three categories [which then determine what can or cannot be controlled.]" That is of course begging the question as to whether a Twitter account qualifies as a government-controlled place or program. And there are major implications of this qualification, far beyond whether politicians are allowed to block people on Twitter. I do not think TV and online private discussion platform have much in common. And I'm sure companies like Twitter and Facebook will fight to try to keep it that way. Television has become somewhat deregulated, but it's still under infinitely more rules and regulations than social media today. For instance the television rules against profanity and nudity did not come from television stations themselves - it was rules imposed on them by the FCC. A single slip of the word fuck was enough to subject stations to huge fines. The enforcement of those rules (huge fines in particular) was deemed unconstitutional only in 2010! There still mountains of other rules and regulations in place on television nonetheless. This is certainly not where social media sites want to find themselves. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that if it is decided the politicians cannot legally block people on Twitter then suddenly that swearing will be regulated against. That is clearly absurd. What I am saying is that the current state of social media is very much unlike other more traditional platforms, like television. And so comparison between them, as a form of precedent, is not terribly meaningful. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28legal%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28legal%29 [2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums
lambda 9y ago
The first amendment applies to the actions of govnerment officials, not private parties. In the meat-space analogy, the mall is still able to kick out people for violating its rules on conduct, but government officials are not allowed to, nor are they allowed to ask the mall to kick people out on their behalf. > Trump can just drop twitter Can he, really? It is his favorite medium, the one that allows him direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like.
- icebraining 9y ago
  In what way would a private site (say, a self-hosted GNU Social instance) not allow Trump direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like?
gaius 9y ago
The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. Twitter is a private platform selective in what users it allows to participate, which is their right as a private company. Twitter (et al) want it both ways. They want the no-liability of a common carrier, in the same way that the phone company or the postal service aren't liable if people use them to plan or carry out illegal acts. But they also want the "private company" right to say who and who cannot say what. The weird decision to withdraw verified identities for certain users for example, when clearly, they are still who they say they are and who Twitter previously confirmed them to be. The selective enforcement of the ToS. Well, they're going to have to choose because the current situation isn't sustainable. Neither will be good for their shareholders.
URSpider94 9y ago
The crux of their argument has nothing to do with whether Twitter is a private forum. That is why the suit is against Trump, not Twitter. The underlying thesis is that Trump (as a government official) can’t pick a forum for public discourse that exerts viewpoint discrimination on participants. To wit: it would actually be fine if Twitter banned all re-posting, replying and re-tweeting. Then all readers would be treated equally. This is the equivalent of posting on a blog with comments disabled, or delivering a televised speech. The issue is that Trump is using Twitter’s tools to discriminate among users based upon their viewpoint. That’s what’s not OK. Just as it would not be OK for a local board to hold their meetings at a private country club, where only members are allowed to observe and comment - especially so if, for example, only men were allowed to be members. There’s nothing wrong with having a private members-only club, the issue is with the governmental body choosing that medium for public commentary.

andy_ppp 9y ago

IMO it’s not about if Twitter is a private space or not it’s about government officials using it as a public space to inform the public. Government officials blocking people clearly does infringe on their first amendment right to be informed even though Twitter isn’t public. The article even points out that if I hold a public press briefing (on private property or not) you can’t stop journalists you don’t like from attending or asking questions. This is the same thing with Twitter; they are fine to have their own rules about blocking people but as soon as government people are using this forum in a public sense their tweets become protected in a way you or me blocking someone doesn’t. To take this even further, if I have a private property and I ban you from it that’s fine, you don’t have a right to be there. But if I’m holding public events on private property you have a right to be able to at least hear what’s being said and maybe even organise a protest against it. At least that’s the way I read the arguments put forward in the article anyway...

spsful 9y ago

I read somewhere that even the NSA didn't call their program PRISM when they used it.. so officials could honestly say they didn't know what you were talking about when you mentioned PRISM. Interesting, no?

c22 9y ago

It's not entirely pointless. The status quo is that all internet sites are private platforms. If the case can be made that some parts of the internet work as "public squares" than the argument for a neutral internet is much stronger.

mc32 9y ago

Comprehensive net neutrality would presumably also include edge service providers (ie, platforms), since they are potential gatekeepers regarding who can post bits and who can't post bits on their sites.

saas_co_de 9y ago

> The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. right. this lawsuit is most likely going nowhere because it would require an incredibly expansive interpretation of free speech rights with far ranging consequences.

indubitable 9y ago

Indeed, I think so many don't really consider the consequences of their actions. If this lawsuit is successful on the desired basis that private companies operating semi-open platforms are legally deemed as "Public Forum" then that is a huge game changer for everything. I have an extremely positive view of the EFF, but in this case it really looks like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. A key statement in the article is, "It’s the president’s (and other officials’) use of Twitter that is subject to the First Amendment, not Twitter itself." Yet their entire argument states quite the opposite - that this entire thing is contingent on Twitter being defined as a sort of legally defined Forum for discussion so that first amendment law is applicable. That categorization most certainly has major implications for Twitter and all major social media for that matter. The thing about issues like net neutrality and the NSA is that, so far, they've covered their legal bases. I think dedicating legal resources to something, that the organization itself presumably has no expectation of a positive ability to influence, would be a far greater travesty than pursuing something where they believe they can effect positive change. The EFF, for how much they do, are incredibly small and underfunded -- they have to pick their fights.

icebraining 9y ago
Yet their entire argument states quite the opposite - that this entire thing is contingent on Twitter being defined as a sort of legally defined Forum for discussion so that first amendment law is applicable. That categorization most certainly has major implications for Twitter and all major social media for that matter. IANAL, but I don't think there's such thing as a binary test of whether a place is subject to the First Amendment or not. It's always applicable in a specific context - here being the restrictions that the government can apply to the public, nothing else. They gave the example of Television, saying that the government can't block specific viewers from seeing it - yet that doesn't make TV channels a sort of public square, where they have to allow anyone to make their statements. It's only a restriction on the government.
- indubitable 9y ago
  This is the core piece of the article's argument: "In creating social media accounts with these communication features, like a Facebook page with a comments section, or a Twitter account that permits tagging and replies, the government endows the public with First Amendment rights to speak in these forums. The First Amendment forbids viewpoint-based speech restrictions like those that result from blocking. The legal doctrine that applies here is the same one that is used to determine the government’s ability to regulate speech in government-controlled places or programs—the Forum Doctrine. [1][2] Essentially, government-controlled forums for speech are divided into three categories [which then determine what can or cannot be controlled.]" That is of course begging the question as to whether a Twitter account qualifies as a government-controlled place or program. And there are major implications of this qualification, far beyond whether politicians are allowed to block people on Twitter. I do not think TV and online private discussion platform have much in common. And I'm sure companies like Twitter and Facebook will fight to try to keep it that way. Television has become somewhat deregulated, but it's still under infinitely more rules and regulations than social media today. For instance the television rules against profanity and nudity did not come from television stations themselves - it was rules imposed on them by the FCC. A single slip of the word fuck was enough to subject stations to huge fines. The enforcement of those rules (huge fines in particular) was deemed unconstitutional only in 2010! There still mountains of other rules and regulations in place on television nonetheless. This is certainly not where social media sites want to find themselves. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that if it is decided the politicians cannot legally block people on Twitter then suddenly that swearing will be regulated against. That is clearly absurd. What I am saying is that the current state of social media is very much unlike other more traditional platforms, like television. And so comparison between them, as a form of precedent, is not terribly meaningful. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28legal%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28legal%29 [2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums

lambda 9y ago

The first amendment applies to the actions of govnerment officials, not private parties. In the meat-space analogy, the mall is still able to kick out people for violating its rules on conduct, but government officials are not allowed to, nor are they allowed to ask the mall to kick people out on their behalf. > Trump can just drop twitter Can he, really? It is his favorite medium, the one that allows him direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like.

icebraining 9y ago
In what way would a private site (say, a self-hosted GNU Social instance) not allow Trump direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like?

gaius 9y ago

The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. Twitter is a private platform selective in what users it allows to participate, which is their right as a private company. Twitter (et al) want it both ways. They want the no-liability of a common carrier, in the same way that the phone company or the postal service aren't liable if people use them to plan or carry out illegal acts. But they also want the "private company" right to say who and who cannot say what. The weird decision to withdraw verified identities for certain users for example, when clearly, they are still who they say they are and who Twitter previously confirmed them to be. The selective enforcement of the ToS. Well, they're going to have to choose because the current situation isn't sustainable. Neither will be good for their shareholders.

URSpider94 9y ago

The crux of their argument has nothing to do with whether Twitter is a private forum. That is why the suit is against Trump, not Twitter. The underlying thesis is that Trump (as a government official) can’t pick a forum for public discourse that exerts viewpoint discrimination on participants. To wit: it would actually be fine if Twitter banned all re-posting, replying and re-tweeting. Then all readers would be treated equally. This is the equivalent of posting on a blog with comments disabled, or delivering a televised speech. The issue is that Trump is using Twitter’s tools to discriminate among users based upon their viewpoint. That’s what’s not OK. Just as it would not be OK for a local board to hold their meetings at a private country club, where only members are allowed to observe and comment - especially so if, for example, only men were allowed to be members. There’s nothing wrong with having a private members-only club, the issue is with the governmental body choosing that medium for public commentary.