5 ms·

Would a state law fining a social media company (for any/whatever reason the law decides to state) even enforceable?

by indigodaddy 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago
Nope. It's performative and will collapse under First Amendment grounds; would even if the Feds tried it.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  I think you’re downvoted because you’ve (correctly) answered this person’s question with respect to the law in the article but parent comment is worded more broadly. I think maybe they’re asking about a state’s ability to fine social media companies for anything.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Yes, unless those laws are unconstitutional, like this lawsuit asserts: > The groups argue the law, set to go into effect July 1, violates the First Amendment by compelling platforms to host speech they'd otherwise remove. > They also argue it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by exempting some companies, and that its vagueness violates the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments.
- noofen 5y ago
  > The groups argue the law, set to go into effect July 1, violates the First Amendment by compelling platforms to host speech they'd otherwise remove. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but isn't this an admission that these companies act like publishers? Yet they have Section 230 protection? How does that work? If they're removing legal content, you should be able to sue Twitter for content they leave up, right?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 230 of the CDA entails[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" What Section 230 says is that all providers of interactive computer services are not liable for user content. That's it. It doesn't matter what the interactive computer service does, or publishes or doesn't publish. If you're a provider of an interactive computer service, you're shielded from liability for user uploaded content. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
    - noofen 5y ago
      Thanks for the details. I'm curious though, couldn't traditional publications just say their articles are "user content" and absolve themselves of all legal liability, like defamation?
      - akersten 5y ago
        Since the work was generated in the course of that employee's duty with the company, I'm not sure why you think the company would be absolved of liability for the content they themselves commissioned. That employee is the company in this capacity.
        noofen 5y ago
        Yea, that makes sense. I'm wondering how it works with something like TikTok's Creator Fund [1] or Twitter Blue content creators (who might be compensated in the future), or even Medium. [1]: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-questions-answered https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-q...
        akersten 5y ago
        I'm sure that if TikTok reimbursed a creator for content that was disparaging/illegal, the chain of suit would involve both the creator and TikTok. Barring complex indemnification agreements in whatever contracts were signed. S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think. It just correctly clarifies that person A posting on site B generated the content, and is who you should sue first if it's disparaging. That's "how it works" with the laws in place today, there doesn't seem to be a deficiency. This is likely a reason why YT and others demonetize controversial videos - for their own preservation, they don't want to fund the creation of content that might lure a suit. I don't think anything's broken here. Definitely nothing that would be fixed by this Florida bill.

Would a state law fining a social media company (for any/whatever reason the law decides to state) even enforceable?

ceejayoz 5y ago

Nope. It's performative and will collapse under First Amendment grounds; would even if the Feds tried it.

elliekelly 5y ago
I think you’re downvoted because you’ve (correctly) answered this person’s question with respect to the law in the article but parent comment is worded more broadly. I think maybe they’re asking about a state’s ability to fine social media companies for anything.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Yes, unless those laws are unconstitutional, like this lawsuit asserts: > The groups argue the law, set to go into effect July 1, violates the First Amendment by compelling platforms to host speech they'd otherwise remove. > They also argue it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by exempting some companies, and that its vagueness violates the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments.

noofen 5y ago
> The groups argue the law, set to go into effect July 1, violates the First Amendment by compelling platforms to host speech they'd otherwise remove. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but isn't this an admission that these companies act like publishers? Yet they have Section 230 protection? How does that work? If they're removing legal content, you should be able to sue Twitter for content they leave up, right?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 230 of the CDA entails[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" What Section 230 says is that all providers of interactive computer services are not liable for user content. That's it. It doesn't matter what the interactive computer service does, or publishes or doesn't publish. If you're a provider of an interactive computer service, you're shielded from liability for user uploaded content. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
  - noofen 5y ago
    Thanks for the details. I'm curious though, couldn't traditional publications just say their articles are "user content" and absolve themselves of all legal liability, like defamation?
    - akersten 5y ago
      Since the work was generated in the course of that employee's duty with the company, I'm not sure why you think the company would be absolved of liability for the content they themselves commissioned. That employee is the company in this capacity.
      - noofen 5y ago
        Yea, that makes sense. I'm wondering how it works with something like TikTok's Creator Fund [1] or Twitter Blue content creators (who might be compensated in the future), or even Medium. [1]: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-questions-answered https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-q...
        akersten 5y ago
        I'm sure that if TikTok reimbursed a creator for content that was disparaging/illegal, the chain of suit would involve both the creator and TikTok. Barring complex indemnification agreements in whatever contracts were signed. S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think. It just correctly clarifies that person A posting on site B generated the content, and is who you should sue first if it's disparaging. That's "how it works" with the laws in place today, there doesn't seem to be a deficiency. This is likely a reason why YT and others demonetize controversial videos - for their own preservation, they don't want to fund the creation of content that might lure a suit. I don't think anything's broken here. Definitely nothing that would be fixed by this Florida bill.