5 ms·
A lot of outrage on reddit. But it seems that this is not a censorship law at all: instead it makes social media sites liable to be sued if they remove politica
by MrSlovenia 7y ago
A lot of outrage on reddit.
But it seems that this is not a censorship law at all: instead it makes social media sites liable to be sued if they remove political content they don't agree it.
So it's more a free speech law that avoids censorship.
Copy paste from a reddit comment:
Since no one apparently read the article or paid attention to the actually meaningful quote:
The draft "calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms."
In other words, this isn't about the federal government removing content. It is about the extent to which social media platforms are legally shielded from lawsuits when they choose to remove content.
The "worst case scenario" of this leaked draft isn't the federal government picks and chooses what content is censored—it's that platforms might have to allow almost every kind of content or risk being sued. Which is the opposite of censorship.
(Please note: I am not arguing in favor of this draft. Only pointing out what it is actually saying sans the rampant fear-mongering going on right now.)
- AdeptusAquinas 7y agoSeems like the worst case scenario would be that some sites would be able to remove or prevent everything the administration doesn't agree with, and yet not be targeted by your FCC, while other sites would have to accept every contradictory or unbalanced post countering their content or be sued.
- MrSlovenia 7y agoIn that case the people could just file a joint lawsuit because their (non-governement) views have been censored.
- thebooktocome 7y agoWhen literally a quarter of federal judges have been appointed by this administration, do you seriously think that lawsuit is going to get a fair hearing?
- MrSlovenia 7y agoIf that will be the case then it's: a) a bad law b) institutions are corrupt: which means that no matter who is leading the goverment free speech will always be policed. And if the institutions really are that corrupt...well...then we're f* anyway
- daybreak 7y agoThis statement implies 75% of federal judges haven't, so the odds are good.
- dnsiz 7y agoIt's incredible how an anti-censorship order is being advertised by the media as... a pro-censorship order. Well, not incredible, as the media are deathly afraid of losing power. But still. This will accelerate it.
- IgorPartola 7y agoSo basically if you run a forum and someone posts a Nazi manifesto, and you choose to remove it because your forum is about Chia pets, the government can come after you. Do you think this makes sense? I would argue that removing something from my own site is as much me exercising free speech as adding something.
- CBLT 7y agoThat is a strawman argument. Re-read the article, this does NOT say everything is protected. Rather, it is clarifying what is protected and what is not.
- theturtletalks 7y agoRegardless, why can’t a platform censor anything they want? It’s their platform and they can do what they want. If censoring eventually pushes people away from your platform, then the market corrected itself.
- CBLT 7y agoThere's nothing factually wrong with your opinion. I understand it and respect it. For me, I believe that platforms as massive and widespread as Facebook or Twitter distort the free-market ruleset, and that some amount of regulation is in fact healthy for the industry they participate in and society as a whole. Once we get to take a look at the actual text, we'll be able to have rational, reasoned discussions about whether this particular regulation is healthy, or unhealthy.
- theturtletalks 7y agoI respect and understand your opinion as well, but making companies become regulated as far as what content they can or must show is opening Pandora’s box. Especially with a government that gets a lot of bad press, they could use that regulation to drown out any voice. If the government is really concerned about people’s voices and free speech being impeded, they should make their own forum or social feed where nothing is censored. We’ll see how that turns out.
- felixgallo 7y agocalling this not-censorship and 'a free speech law' is the most opposite-of-reality reading possible. This is an attempt by the government to force private companies to carry the government's desired content ("compelled speech"). This has repeatedly been tried in 1A cases and repeatedly been rebuffed (e.g. Riley vs. National Federation of the Blind).