7 ms·

A new WSJ op-ed on how Big Tech is threatening the Constitution

20 points by jimmy2020 6y ago

Tomte 6y ago
Don't editorialize. Real title: "Save the Constitution From Big Tech".
- pmiller2 6y ago
  The submitted title is arguably better, because it's less click-baity.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The current title de-editorializes the source title, which is explicitly one of the acceptable reasons for not using the source title.
pmiller2 6y ago
For those who don't want to sign up to read this one article: https://archive.is/63dm7 https://archive.is/63dm7
chopin24 6y ago
Post needs a title change to match the original article. But, the op-ed is spot on. The government is inducing tech companies to do what they can't do legally, and this started with the "elective affinity" between the CIA and Google starting post-9/11, which kicked off a whole host of data collection that the CIA couldn't do itself, but can get very easily from Google and others. I'm beginning to think the only solution is a "public option" social network moderated by these out of work folks, similar to the CCP's 五毛黨, except with the rule of law. That way, these private corporations can go about censoring whoever they want, and there'll always be the public square moderated with the actual laws of the land.
offby37years 6y ago
The slide into a totalitarian dystopia is much quicker than you'd think. It was only two years ago Alex Jones was banned from mainstream social media for his crazy theatricals. We've already slid to Chinese WeChat-level censorship with blanket bans on terms like "Stop the Steal" (which at least a third of the US consider tantamount to banning the utterance of "Tiananmen Square").
Spivak 6y ago
I feel like the title is misleading to make it seem like social media platforms are the bad guys here. The article is actually about threatening loss of Section 230 protections to compel sites that host user-generated content to censor speech the government would not allowed to censor under the constitution. It’s an interesting argument but it seems like it’s not a good characterization of what’s happening unless we’re specifically talking about deplatforming Parler which is decidedly not “big tech.” The gov’t is allowed to compel companies to censor speech that is not protected by the 1st amendment and those companies, not burdened by the legal 1st amendment, are allowed to comply by casting a broader net than the gov’t would legally be allowed to.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so. I don't buy this part exactly. The existence of Section 230 on its own doesn't require or induce them to censor any speech in particular. It's content-neutral. But when public officials then make demands for censorship under threat of adverse regulatory changes, well, that's "induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish" then isn't it?
pmiller2 6y ago
Folks, you can stop reading right here: > That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so. This is a factual distortion of what section 230 is, as noted in this article, submitted yesterday: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Actually you can't, because although that part of the article is wrong, they get to the real point after it.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    No, the entire rest of the argument rests on the claim that section 230 creates an inducement to moderate by removing liability. It does not. If anything, it creates an inducement to do the opposite, by removing liability for third party content.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      The rest of the argument rests on the claim that government officials threatening to adversely modify Section 230 if companies don't engage in censorship the government itself could not require, is a constitutional violation.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Where are they making that claim? Every single case citation points toward the "section 230 creates an inducement to moderate." I saw some vague claims of sabre rattling about "regulation," but nothing about modifying 230.
        6y ago
ketamine__ 6y ago
> Ordinary Americans understand the First Amendment better than the elites do. Users who say Facebook, Twitter and Google are violating their constitutional rights are right. Aggrieved plaintiffs should sue these companies now to protect the voice of every American—and our constitutional democracy. Does anyone find it amusing that Facebook and Twitter, which are basically venues for cheap entertainment, are now considered an important part of democracy by this author? If both these sites didn't exist people would go to Reuters, NYT, Imgur, etc directly. And nothing of value would be lost. > Suppression of dissent breeds terror. The answer to last week’s horror should be to open more channels of dialogue, not to close them off. If disaffected Americans no longer have an outlet to be heard, the siege of Capitol Hill will look like a friendly parley compared with what’s to come. What did domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh do before Facebook and Twitter? They killed people. > Liberals should worry too. If big tech can shut down the president, what stops them from doing the same to Joe Biden if he backs antitrust suits against social-media companies? Our Framers deeply understood the need for checks and balances in government. They couldn’t anticipate the rise of a new Leviathan with unchecked power to make extraconstitutional political judgments under the mantle of private enterprise. That's fine if a website doesn't want to feature Biden. The framers couldn't even imagine the amount of media exposure that politicians have achieved from the internet.
- Bostonian 6y ago
  "Does anyone find it amusing that Facebook and Twitter, which are basically venues for cheap entertainment, are now considered an important part of democracy by this author? If both these sites didn't exist people would go to Reuters, NYT, Imgur, etc directly. And nothing of value would be lost." I value my ability to post articles that I think are important on Facebook, and to comment on them. Many others probably do too.

20 points by jimmy2020 6y ago

Tomte 6y ago

Don't editorialize. Real title: "Save the Constitution From Big Tech".

pmiller2 6y ago
The submitted title is arguably better, because it's less click-baity.
dragonwriter 6y ago
The current title de-editorializes the source title, which is explicitly one of the acceptable reasons for not using the source title.

pmiller2 6y ago

For those who don't want to sign up to read this one article: https://archive.is/63dm7 https://archive.is/63dm7

chopin24 6y ago

Post needs a title change to match the original article. But, the op-ed is spot on. The government is inducing tech companies to do what they can't do legally, and this started with the "elective affinity" between the CIA and Google starting post-9/11, which kicked off a whole host of data collection that the CIA couldn't do itself, but can get very easily from Google and others. I'm beginning to think the only solution is a "public option" social network moderated by these out of work folks, similar to the CCP's 五毛黨, except with the rule of law. That way, these private corporations can go about censoring whoever they want, and there'll always be the public square moderated with the actual laws of the land.

offby37years 6y ago

The slide into a totalitarian dystopia is much quicker than you'd think. It was only two years ago Alex Jones was banned from mainstream social media for his crazy theatricals. We've already slid to Chinese WeChat-level censorship with blanket bans on terms like "Stop the Steal" (which at least a third of the US consider tantamount to banning the utterance of "Tiananmen Square").

Spivak 6y ago

I feel like the title is misleading to make it seem like social media platforms are the bad guys here. The article is actually about threatening loss of Section 230 protections to compel sites that host user-generated content to censor speech the government would not allowed to censor under the constitution. It’s an interesting argument but it seems like it’s not a good characterization of what’s happening unless we’re specifically talking about deplatforming Parler which is decidedly not “big tech.” The gov’t is allowed to compel companies to censor speech that is not protected by the 1st amendment and those companies, not burdened by the legal 1st amendment, are allowed to comply by casting a broader net than the gov’t would legally be allowed to.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so. I don't buy this part exactly. The existence of Section 230 on its own doesn't require or induce them to censor any speech in particular. It's content-neutral. But when public officials then make demands for censorship under threat of adverse regulatory changes, well, that's "induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish" then isn't it?

pmiller2 6y ago

Folks, you can stop reading right here: > That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so. This is a factual distortion of what section 230 is, as noted in this article, submitted yesterday: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Actually you can't, because although that part of the article is wrong, they get to the real point after it.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  No, the entire rest of the argument rests on the claim that section 230 creates an inducement to moderate by removing liability. It does not. If anything, it creates an inducement to do the opposite, by removing liability for third party content.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The rest of the argument rests on the claim that government officials threatening to adversely modify Section 230 if companies don't engage in censorship the government itself could not require, is a constitutional violation.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Where are they making that claim? Every single case citation points toward the "section 230 creates an inducement to moderate." I saw some vague claims of sabre rattling about "regulation," but nothing about modifying 230.
      - 6y ago

ketamine__ 6y ago

> Ordinary Americans understand the First Amendment better than the elites do. Users who say Facebook, Twitter and Google are violating their constitutional rights are right. Aggrieved plaintiffs should sue these companies now to protect the voice of every American—and our constitutional democracy. Does anyone find it amusing that Facebook and Twitter, which are basically venues for cheap entertainment, are now considered an important part of democracy by this author? If both these sites didn't exist people would go to Reuters, NYT, Imgur, etc directly. And nothing of value would be lost. > Suppression of dissent breeds terror. The answer to last week’s horror should be to open more channels of dialogue, not to close them off. If disaffected Americans no longer have an outlet to be heard, the siege of Capitol Hill will look like a friendly parley compared with what’s to come. What did domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh do before Facebook and Twitter? They killed people. > Liberals should worry too. If big tech can shut down the president, what stops them from doing the same to Joe Biden if he backs antitrust suits against social-media companies? Our Framers deeply understood the need for checks and balances in government. They couldn’t anticipate the rise of a new Leviathan with unchecked power to make extraconstitutional political judgments under the mantle of private enterprise. That's fine if a website doesn't want to feature Biden. The framers couldn't even imagine the amount of media exposure that politicians have achieved from the internet.

Bostonian 6y ago
"Does anyone find it amusing that Facebook and Twitter, which are basically venues for cheap entertainment, are now considered an important part of democracy by this author? If both these sites didn't exist people would go to Reuters, NYT, Imgur, etc directly. And nothing of value would be lost." I value my ability to post articles that I think are important on Facebook, and to comment on them. Many others probably do too.