5 ms·

The constitution prohibits the government from banning political speech unless it will, e.g. incite imminent violence. Keyword being imminent. Merely supporting

The constitution prohibits the government from banning political speech unless it will, e.g. incite imminent violence. Keyword being imminent. Merely supporting violence in general and non-specific terms is not illegal and cannot be made illegal under the constitution, so the government cannot decide to ban most of the types of speech that the tech companies have chosen to ban (including Trump's recent tweets that got him banned). If you think it is good that the recent bans took place then you have no choice but to delegate decision making authority to the industry, because the government is not constitutionally permitted to demand that tech companies make those decisions.

Grimm1 6y ago
My understanding is multiple posts on Parler did match our incitement laws even up to planning events to come in the next few weeks.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I guess it’s theoretically possible to set up an arm of law enforcement whose sole job would be to monitor all social media, along with a judicial division that could stand at the ready to issue court orders for comment takedowns. Maybe.
  - no-s 6y ago
    >>I guess it’s theoretically possible to set up an arm of law enforcement whose sole job would be to monitor all social media, along with a judicial division that could stand at the ready to issue court orders for comment takedowns not theoretic (not pumping my post but amusing you would comment simultaneously with my noticing this): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25749923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25749923
- scruple 6y ago
  My understanding was that planning was happening on multiple social media sites, notably Facebook.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    And the US government should bring a case against them. I don't think you'll find me inconsistent in that thought, I also argued an ISP yesterday that blocked FB is fully within its rights to do so. Personally I think we need anti-trust action against a lot of larger tech companies and second that they have now opened the door on further regulation regarding content moderation. I think getting rid of Section 230 entirely would be a mistake but I won't be surprised to see it amended in some form.
    - guscost 6y ago
      Never mind plain old lobbying, any legislator who supports a crackdown on Facebook could be de-platformed. These tech leviathans have captured the regulators in a way that has never been seen before, and now they are flaunting grotesque anti-competitive bullying in all of our faces. Depending on the government to fix this mess is not going to go well.
  - sanderjd 6y ago
    I believe the distinction between the two (though note: I am very willing to change this belief based on learning details I don't currently know) is that Facebook tries to remove such content (though it may not perfectly succeed) whereas Parler actively refused to do so when AWS made them aware and asked them to remove it.
- acomjean 6y ago
  This is one reason why amazon pulled the plug and the violent posts were "rapidly growing". This kind of customer is probably a huge headache to deal with, and complaints were being sent/forwarded from amazon and "some" were acted on. From Ars article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/amazon-cuts-off-parlers-web-hosting-following-apple-google-bans/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/amazon-cuts-off-... Amazon said: "It's clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t "feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform." This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts."

Grimm1 6y ago

My understanding is multiple posts on Parler did match our incitement laws even up to planning events to come in the next few weeks.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I guess it’s theoretically possible to set up an arm of law enforcement whose sole job would be to monitor all social media, along with a judicial division that could stand at the ready to issue court orders for comment takedowns. Maybe.
- no-s 6y ago
  >>I guess it’s theoretically possible to set up an arm of law enforcement whose sole job would be to monitor all social media, along with a judicial division that could stand at the ready to issue court orders for comment takedowns not theoretic (not pumping my post but amusing you would comment simultaneously with my noticing this): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25749923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25749923
scruple 6y ago
My understanding was that planning was happening on multiple social media sites, notably Facebook.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  And the US government should bring a case against them. I don't think you'll find me inconsistent in that thought, I also argued an ISP yesterday that blocked FB is fully within its rights to do so. Personally I think we need anti-trust action against a lot of larger tech companies and second that they have now opened the door on further regulation regarding content moderation. I think getting rid of Section 230 entirely would be a mistake but I won't be surprised to see it amended in some form.
  - guscost 6y ago
    Never mind plain old lobbying, any legislator who supports a crackdown on Facebook could be de-platformed. These tech leviathans have captured the regulators in a way that has never been seen before, and now they are flaunting grotesque anti-competitive bullying in all of our faces. Depending on the government to fix this mess is not going to go well.
- sanderjd 6y ago
  I believe the distinction between the two (though note: I am very willing to change this belief based on learning details I don't currently know) is that Facebook tries to remove such content (though it may not perfectly succeed) whereas Parler actively refused to do so when AWS made them aware and asked them to remove it.
acomjean 6y ago
This is one reason why amazon pulled the plug and the violent posts were "rapidly growing". This kind of customer is probably a huge headache to deal with, and complaints were being sent/forwarded from amazon and "some" were acted on. From Ars article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/amazon-cuts-off-parlers-web-hosting-following-apple-google-bans/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/amazon-cuts-off-... Amazon said: "It's clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t "feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform." This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts."