6 ms·

Texas passes law that bans kicking people off social media based on ‘viewpoint’

18 points by underscore_ku 5y ago

nodex-alex 5y ago
and yet they passed a law that forbids peoples viewpoint on abortion or their viewpoint ont he right to abort a child.... THe irony is not lost
- throwaway27727 5y ago
  Disingenuous comment. The law they passed does not forbid the expression of other viewpoints on the right to abortion. With your reasoning, any law passed, ever, would be forbidding the expression of the opposing viewpoint - which would be pretty major, no?
easton_s 5y ago
State law can not superseded federal law.
- krapp 5y ago
  Texas doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the Federal government when the Democrats are running it. /s
LocalH 5y ago
I actually agree with the concept behind this, if not necessarily the implementation. We don't allow the phone company to disconnect you based on "viewpoint". However, if there is illegal activity, then the police can become involved, but unless you're harming the network, the phone company can usually only disconnect you for nonpayment. I'm really truly coming around to the idea that, once a platform becomes such a major influence on social and political discourse, they should be forced to become a common carrier, like the phone company. But of course, we all know, if phones were invented today, there wouldn't be such a thing as common carrier.
- run-types 5y ago
  Why would social networks be classified as a common carrier? There are plenty of options out there, and the capital required to start one is pretty low compared to something like a internet service provider or a train network. Not to mention that common carriers are also able to enter into contracts of carriage with passengers / users.
  - LocalH 5y ago
    Because they have such an influence on discourse. I'm not saying that any old little forum should be covered by the concept. But when you have billions of users, you're necessarily a little more "public" than if you're a startup with 1000 users. ISPs aren't currently common carriers as far as I know, although I'm leaning towards the idea that they should be. There is precedent for this. I'm of the understanding that Disneyland is considered a common carrier. Facebook is certainly "delivering" users' content to other users. They have a complex algorithm to route posts to different people's feeds.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Hypothetical: current social media dominants become restricted by governments from expelling people based on their views, no matter how radical. Consequently their platforms become full of hateful propaganda by the kinds of groups that love freedom of speech for all the wrong reasons. As a response, I start up a new social media site that promises to keep people like that out, which I can do because I'm small enough to avoid the regulation. Within a year my social media site attains billions of users sick of dealing with Big Corp's platforms and their hate mobs. Unfortunately, now I'm big enough to be subject to the same regulation. Is this actually what we want?
      - maxwell 5y ago
        A federated network of social media services all with under 50 million users to avoid regulation? Sounds good to me.
devwastaken 5y ago
Blackout Texas. They're breaking the law, violating rights, controlling companies, and no doubt they'll try to enforce it if you step in state lines. Watch their governor get ousted over all the people no longer able to access Facebook.
Indomit 5y ago
Its always interesting how willingly people are to accept powerful entities with the capacity to exert meaningful control over society to exist, so as long as their actions align with some subset of their beliefs/sensibilities.
- krapp 5y ago
  Are you talking about social media platforms, or the governments that now get to revoke their free speech rights when they get too popular?
smt88 5y ago
Like many (but not all) GOP actions lately, this appears to be entirely symbolic -- a way to show their base that they're "doing things," even if those things will be immediately struck down as blatantly violating the First Amendment. As the article says: > "The rule’s future, however, is uncertain. It’s likely to face legal challenges from critics, and unlike the recent Texas abortion ban, it’s not tailored to evade judicial scrutiny. A judge blocked Florida’s social media law in June, saying it 'compels providers to host speech that violates their standards.'"
beardyw 5y ago
If you are expressing the views of a foreign state or group will your anti US rhetoric be respected?

18 points by underscore_ku 5y ago

and yet they passed a law that forbids peoples viewpoint on abortion or their viewpoint ont he right to abort a child.... THe irony is not lost

throwaway27727 5y ago
Disingenuous comment. The law they passed does not forbid the expression of other viewpoints on the right to abortion. With your reasoning, any law passed, ever, would be forbidding the expression of the opposing viewpoint - which would be pretty major, no?

easton_s 5y ago

State law can not superseded federal law.

krapp 5y ago
Texas doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the Federal government when the Democrats are running it. /s

LocalH 5y ago

I actually agree with the concept behind this, if not necessarily the implementation. We don't allow the phone company to disconnect you based on "viewpoint". However, if there is illegal activity, then the police can become involved, but unless you're harming the network, the phone company can usually only disconnect you for nonpayment. I'm really truly coming around to the idea that, once a platform becomes such a major influence on social and political discourse, they should be forced to become a common carrier, like the phone company. But of course, we all know, if phones were invented today, there wouldn't be such a thing as common carrier.

run-types 5y ago
Why would social networks be classified as a common carrier? There are plenty of options out there, and the capital required to start one is pretty low compared to something like a internet service provider or a train network. Not to mention that common carriers are also able to enter into contracts of carriage with passengers / users.
- LocalH 5y ago
  Because they have such an influence on discourse. I'm not saying that any old little forum should be covered by the concept. But when you have billions of users, you're necessarily a little more "public" than if you're a startup with 1000 users. ISPs aren't currently common carriers as far as I know, although I'm leaning towards the idea that they should be. There is precedent for this. I'm of the understanding that Disneyland is considered a common carrier. Facebook is certainly "delivering" users' content to other users. They have a complex algorithm to route posts to different people's feeds.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Hypothetical: current social media dominants become restricted by governments from expelling people based on their views, no matter how radical. Consequently their platforms become full of hateful propaganda by the kinds of groups that love freedom of speech for all the wrong reasons. As a response, I start up a new social media site that promises to keep people like that out, which I can do because I'm small enough to avoid the regulation. Within a year my social media site attains billions of users sick of dealing with Big Corp's platforms and their hate mobs. Unfortunately, now I'm big enough to be subject to the same regulation. Is this actually what we want?
    - maxwell 5y ago
      A federated network of social media services all with under 50 million users to avoid regulation? Sounds good to me.

devwastaken 5y ago

Blackout Texas. They're breaking the law, violating rights, controlling companies, and no doubt they'll try to enforce it if you step in state lines. Watch their governor get ousted over all the people no longer able to access Facebook.

Indomit 5y ago

Its always interesting how willingly people are to accept powerful entities with the capacity to exert meaningful control over society to exist, so as long as their actions align with some subset of their beliefs/sensibilities.

krapp 5y ago
Are you talking about social media platforms, or the governments that now get to revoke their free speech rights when they get too popular?

smt88 5y ago

Like many (but not all) GOP actions lately, this appears to be entirely symbolic -- a way to show their base that they're "doing things," even if those things will be immediately struck down as blatantly violating the First Amendment. As the article says: > "The rule’s future, however, is uncertain. It’s likely to face legal challenges from critics, and unlike the recent Texas abortion ban, it’s not tailored to evade judicial scrutiny. A judge blocked Florida’s social media law in June, saying it 'compels providers to host speech that violates their standards.'"

beardyw 5y ago

If you are expressing the views of a foreign state or group will your anti US rhetoric be respected?