5 ms·

I guess we will see, but I welcome the change. I'm glad someone is doing something to reel these social media giants in. I'd like to see transparent moderation

I guess we will see, but I welcome the change. I'm glad someone is doing something to reel these social media giants in. I'd like to see transparent moderation logs first and foremost. These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet. It's funny when you hear the "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" then the same crowd comes by and says, "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!" When did we start caring about corporation rights more than people's rights?

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> I welcome the change. I'm glad someone is doing something to reel these social media giants in How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in? > These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet. They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for? > "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains. > "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!" That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. A Gov forcing someone to amplify the opinions of people in power is an ethical abomination that the 1A protects all of us from.
- throwaway292893 5y ago
  > How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in? That's the articles take, not mine. I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished. > They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for even more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for? How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed at all if it threatens the narrative, that's the problem. What are you calling for? Do you like the status quo? I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them. I want transparency. > You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains. The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. I can want companies to abide by this value. When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now? Maybe it's time we apply those same restrictions to it because it's nearly an extension of the government. > That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. Unless you're a baker. Noone can go after poor little small business private-entity Twitter who has done nothing wrong at all. Got it. Just because you agree with the censorship now, doesn't mean it won't turn on you later.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished. A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech. > How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed period, that's the problem. That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it. However, you see other media outlets that aren't amplifying opinions you like. You advocate this FL law that aims to force them to. This a tyrannical effort.
    - throwaway292893 5y ago
      > A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech. You are not Twitter or Facebook. Stop pretending these giant social behemoths are people, they are not. > That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it. Google deplatformed The Federalist, Press California, and Parler just recently, not a great example to use.
      - yeetawayhn 5y ago
        >You are not Twitter or Facebook. Stop pretending these giant social behemoths are people, they are not. The problem is that people who have such opinions refuse to understand that they have made a category error and how broken their premises are.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. This isn't an idea. It is a constitutional fact, one that is self-evident by reading the amendment. > I can want companies to abide by this value. Sure. Want away. I support your right to want things. > When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now? Different things are mashed here. Public square implies public (Gov owned) property. A Gov official that posts a comment on my blog wouldn't transform my blog into a Gov owned entity. It would be a disaster if it did because it would become trivial for any Gov offical to seize my entire blog. > (The 1A protects private entities from Govs.) Unless you're a baker. I have friends who work at banks. None have mentioned that their 1A rights are being violated by any government. Should I ask them directly?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  And how is creating exceptions for entertainment companies with at least a large volume of customers “reeling in” the big anything? If anything the exceptions should be for those with less revenue and customers.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> I welcome the change. I'm glad someone is doing something to reel these social media giants in How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in? > These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet. They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for? > "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains. > "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!" That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. A Gov forcing someone to amplify the opinions of people in power is an ethical abomination that the 1A protects all of us from.

throwaway292893 5y ago
> How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in? That's the articles take, not mine. I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished. > They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for even more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for? How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed at all if it threatens the narrative, that's the problem. What are you calling for? Do you like the status quo? I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them. I want transparency. > You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains. The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. I can want companies to abide by this value. When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now? Maybe it's time we apply those same restrictions to it because it's nearly an extension of the government. > That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. Unless you're a baker. Noone can go after poor little small business private-entity Twitter who has done nothing wrong at all. Got it. Just because you agree with the censorship now, doesn't mean it won't turn on you later.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished. A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech. > How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed period, that's the problem. That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it. However, you see other media outlets that aren't amplifying opinions you like. You advocate this FL law that aims to force them to. This a tyrannical effort.
  - throwaway292893 5y ago
    > A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech. You are not Twitter or Facebook. Stop pretending these giant social behemoths are people, they are not. > That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it. Google deplatformed The Federalist, Press California, and Parler just recently, not a great example to use.
    - yeetawayhn 5y ago
      >You are not Twitter or Facebook. Stop pretending these giant social behemoths are people, they are not. The problem is that people who have such opinions refuse to understand that they have made a category error and how broken their premises are.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. This isn't an idea. It is a constitutional fact, one that is self-evident by reading the amendment. > I can want companies to abide by this value. Sure. Want away. I support your right to want things. > When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now? Different things are mashed here. Public square implies public (Gov owned) property. A Gov official that posts a comment on my blog wouldn't transform my blog into a Gov owned entity. It would be a disaster if it did because it would become trivial for any Gov offical to seize my entire blog. > (The 1A protects private entities from Govs.) Unless you're a baker. I have friends who work at banks. None have mentioned that their 1A rights are being violated by any government. Should I ask them directly?
threatofrain 5y ago
And how is creating exceptions for entertainment companies with at least a large volume of customers “reeling in” the big anything? If anything the exceptions should be for those with less revenue and customers.