4 ms·

If you are a true platform, which the social media giants insist that they are, then it's tough to call it "compelled speech" when it was posted by someone who

If you are a true platform, which the social media giants insist that they are, then it's tough to call it "compelled speech" when it was posted by someone who is not representing the company. The company is not the one saying it, despite it being hosted by them.

kube-system 5y ago
It doesn't have to be a first-party statement to be considered "compelled speech". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v._Tornillo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v.... It is pretty reasonable for conversations to have moderation, just as private groups can do in person, and as publications have editors. It is not yet clear how social media fits into the platform/publisher/utility/whatever debate, but I'm just saying that we should be careful. Whatever we decide applies to Facebook/Twitter now will apply to some other company you or I create in the next decade.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  To me, there are two aspects of that ruling you cited which make it entirely different from social media: 1. "newspapers are economically finite enterprises" - There is a very real cost involved with printing newspapers, while the cost of hosting a social media post is so small it's not even worth mentioning. 2. "the exercise of editorial judgment is a protected First Amendment activity" - Everything that goes into a newspaper has to pass editorial review, meaning the newspaper controls and is responsible for what is published. Social media does not have that.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    The cost of an online news publication is even smaller than a social media site, but we don't limit their speech further. The editorial power of social media sites is kind of nebulous, I guess we'll have a court case that settles this at some point, but I'm not so sure it's clear now.

4 ms·

If you are a true platform, which the social media giants insist that they are, then it's tough to call it "compelled speech" when it was posted by someone who

by jaywalk 5y ago

kube-system 5y ago
It doesn't have to be a first-party statement to be considered "compelled speech". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v._Tornillo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v.... It is pretty reasonable for conversations to have moderation, just as private groups can do in person, and as publications have editors. It is not yet clear how social media fits into the platform/publisher/utility/whatever debate, but I'm just saying that we should be careful. Whatever we decide applies to Facebook/Twitter now will apply to some other company you or I create in the next decade.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  To me, there are two aspects of that ruling you cited which make it entirely different from social media: 1. "newspapers are economically finite enterprises" - There is a very real cost involved with printing newspapers, while the cost of hosting a social media post is so small it's not even worth mentioning. 2. "the exercise of editorial judgment is a protected First Amendment activity" - Everything that goes into a newspaper has to pass editorial review, meaning the newspaper controls and is responsible for what is published. Social media does not have that.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    The cost of an online news publication is even smaller than a social media site, but we don't limit their speech further. The editorial power of social media sites is kind of nebulous, I guess we'll have a court case that settles this at some point, but I'm not so sure it's clear now.