7 ms·

Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

24 points by rastafang 5y ago

ggm 5y ago
Texas laws are either very strange, or badly communicated or possibly both. Somehow I "get" what they might be trying to do, but the first Satanist refused writing on a Christian ethics forum is hours away...
- dangit2 5y ago
  that is a good law... or at least a good start
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Texas judges will rule that blasphemy is not protected speech unless it’s Christian.
- epakai 5y ago
  There's a 50 million active user in the US requirement. It's pretty much only for the big platforms.
dragonwriter 5y ago
Abbot admitting that the purpose of the law is to force unwilling private entities to promote conservative viewpoints is likely to be front and center in the ruling striking it down as an overt free speech violation. That's the part you are supposed to at least make opponents catch you saying privately to a friendly audience to prove their point...
- leggomuhgreggo 5y ago
  You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored? I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored? No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism, or improper effect can make a law unconstitutional.
    - propogandist 5y ago
      the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint. The recent events, where conservative voices were targeted by big tech, was the catalyst for the law, but that doesn't make it illegal.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint. You seem to be assuming a facially neutral law with a viewpoint specific purpose is Constitutional. It is not. Usually, its harder to prove an improper purpose for a facially-neutral law, but then usually the people passing and signing a law with an improper purpose don't just public announce the viewpoint they are seeking to advance.
akerl_ 5y ago
Am I missing something, or is this a clear cut reversal the first time this law finds itself in front of the Supreme Court?
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  Legislation is mostly performance art there.
  - backtoyoujim 5y ago
    And the Texas state constitution has almost 700 amendments.
- salawat 5y ago
  Until you add some teeth to "Congress shall pass no law" beyond wasting everyone's time, this is a largely symbolic gesture.
- conductr 5y ago
  All these new Texas laws will be ruled against, likely before the Supreme Court. It’s all for naught and likely going to cost Abbott his job. We’ll see how strong the Texas conservatives are but I think these laws have them divided. They were insanely unified during Trump’s era and that’s how we got here.
  - epakai 5y ago
    It probably helps him keep his job. At the moment Abbott doesn't really have an Democrat opponent. His biggest concerns are being primaried by more Trumpian politicians.
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    It’s performance art by politicians. Playing to the rabid fringe, even though you know it’s all gonna get tossed. And when it does get tossed, that will enrage them more and you can squeeze them again for more donations. Problem is, it manages to do some real damage and really hurt some people in the meanwhile.
AnnoyedComment 5y ago
We'll see if it helps stop the blatant partisanship or not.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  So blatant Facebook PR is trying to distract people from the fact that 8 of the top 10 posts each day are from Breitbart et al Yes, "conservative" accounts get banned more often than "progressive" ones. Or, at least, that's how it may appear if your definition of "conservative" is dominated by racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia. Which isn't entirely wrong, obviously: traditionally, the ideology that despised all deviations from the norm just came with a different label, fascism.
- thephyber 5y ago
  Almost no chance of that. This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence? I’ve worked at a large social media company (one most people would not recognize). The loud users that get banned almost always play up the “I didn’t do anything wrong” card but the moderation department has the evidence that they very blatantly did violate the objective standards of the site. The problem is that the public doesn’t see the evidence that the moderation department does, so they are outraged after only looking at half of a ledger.
  - chuckee 5y ago
    > This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. On the other hand, freedom of association didn't stop the civil rights act. But freedom of association is less clearly defined in the constitution. Maybe a better example are the many regulations on commercial speech that exist despite the 1st amendment.
    - thephyber 5y ago
mikewarot 5y ago
It seems like Texas, as a whole, has decided to commit economic and political suicide. From the self inflicted failures of the power and gas infrastructure last winter, to the latest assault on women, this law could potentially have all social media ban Texas residents.
- bluedevil2k 5y ago
  > potentially have all social media ban Texas residents The productivity gains from this action would far outweigh any economic loss.
  - ttyprintk 5y ago
    But the rise in invincible spam would make sites like StackOverflow think twice about accepting questions from Texans.
- collectedparts 5y ago
  And yet: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2021/08/24/texas-is-out-competing-every-state-in-the-race-for-california-company-relocations/ https://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2021/08/24/texas... (Granted, that is from prior to these most recent fiascos.)
- Banana699 5y ago
  >It seems like Texas, as a whole, has decided to commit economic and political suicide. Not really, corporations don't give a heck about rights or principles, only regulations and laws. Corporations verbally obey and pay lip service to the moral fashions of the perceived memetic majority, that's the user interface. The backend is a ruthless optimization engine maximizing a very specific utility function and caring for literally nothing else.
Barrin92 5y ago
The fact aside as others have pointed out that this basically a reversal of what free speech means, the other thing is, since when is an institution, merely because it has public character, required to tolerate all political viewpoints? Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism. It's a very weird, sort of "in your face"-ism. Freedom of assembly means that said assembly can deny people entry or be exclusionary. That's just how a pluralistic society works. Also it's a very non-conservative idea, a sort of political gender quota
- dudydyevr 5y ago
  Boohoo, companies worth billions of dollars and workers worth millions of dollars might have to support viewpoints contrary to their own. What a loss for the common man to have enforced neutrality.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Should phone companies be able to ban people for their political opinions? ISPs? The water company? The electricity company? Why do they have to tolerate people using their services to push some political viewpoints?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Let's say there is an easement should there be right to block use of that based on political options. After all it is private property.
- leggomuhgreggo 5y ago
  The more worrisome "inversion of speech" would seem to be that institutions have the same free speech rights as humans. Social media platforms are increasingly akin to the pubic forums of old, where essentially all meaningful exchange of ideas takes place — and where excommunication functions like "free speech zones" designed to marginalize and render the exercise of political expression inert. I would suggest a relevant precedent might be laws limiting media ownership. I'd also point out that institutions of a certain size exercise control over human in a similar way to governments — and the "private business" distinction becomes increasingly blurry when we consider how deeply these companies collide with law enforcement and govt agencies to censor information. It's a complicated topic!
iammisc 5y ago
As a conservative, I'm against this law as it is government overreach. Instead, Texas should tax Facebook several millions of dollars for all Texas residents who are on Facebook (and all social media with more than X subscribers). The law should be written as a measure for the public health and should cite numerous studies pointing out the toxic effect of social media. The end goal should be to get Texans off social media and to end facebooks monopoly. No one needs social media. It is toxic. It should be treated like tobacco is -- a disgusting habit some engage in. But that would require the republican party to actually be effective and bold and do what it's voters want.
- dimator 5y ago
  I'm progressive, and I would completely be behind this policy. Unfortunately, both parties need campaign funds, and so they'll both concede to social media lobbyists. Until we solve campaign finance reform, no progress will be made on even the most agreeable of policy positions, as long as there are deep pockets opposed.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Uhh... wouldn't applying this to junk food be like "let's tax all McDonalds out of existence because people eat too many Big Macs"? Or is it an example of Poe's law in action?
- sufiaarsala 5y ago
  Taxes are very important for run any business and grow up. Taxes make your business secure and save for a bad websites. I also run a small business and I hired a SEO Experts (https://seoexperts.pk/ https://seoexperts.pk/) for my work and it site pay all taxes time to time and gives the best services.
- ttymck 5y ago
  Should the government also target gambling, alcohol and pornography? Should companies in those fields be taxed as well? How do you measure how many Texans consume porn, and from which producers? Are you taxing the studios or the distributors? How many Texans drink Smirnoff?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aerroon 5y ago
>The new law states social media platforms with more than 50 million users cannot ban people based on their political viewpoints. With an exemption that large this doesn't seem too unreasonable. We don't let the phone company ban you for political speech in their platform (the phone call), do we?
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  Other comments about the phone company answered this better, but the phone company is not offering an attractive option to block all crackpot phone calls coming in.
Goety 5y ago
It's hard to ignore how california and texas are being attacked and yet biden does nothing
throwawaysea 5y ago
Social media companies have too much power. As Justice Clarence Thomas articulated, big social media platforms should be treated as common carriers (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-right-about-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-ri...). They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. They are the new public square where civil liberties like free speech are most frequently exercised. Viewpoint discrimination on these platforms is bad for a liberal society, and plainly oppressive. Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. There are many ways in which they can be legally compelled to carry speech, as a UCLA Professor recently analyzed (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and-treating-social-media-platforms-as-common-carriers/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and...).
- filoeleven 5y ago
  > They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. Oh, but they are! My phone company makes no attempt to influence the content of my voice or text conversations, nor how I use my data plan. Facebook/Twitter do their very best to tailor what I see to keep me scrolling and “engaged.” If this is the new public square, the crack dealers are already selling, and in fact are the ones who built the square. I think I like the idea of social media as common carrier. It would require vast changes in how their apps are designed though. > Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. This seems like a bad idea, unless you want to elevate the status of political affiliation to that of religion, and expect violations of that protection to be enforced just as unevenly.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. What's special about a political viewpoint? How do you even define "political viewpoint"? Is it different from a "religious viewpoint"? Is it different from a run-of-the-mill opinion?
  - ttyprintk 5y ago

24 points by rastafang 5y ago

ggm 5y ago

Texas laws are either very strange, or badly communicated or possibly both. Somehow I "get" what they might be trying to do, but the first Satanist refused writing on a Christian ethics forum is hours away...

dangit2 5y ago
that is a good law... or at least a good start
rbanffy 5y ago
Texas judges will rule that blasphemy is not protected speech unless it’s Christian.
epakai 5y ago
There's a 50 million active user in the US requirement. It's pretty much only for the big platforms.

dragonwriter 5y ago

Abbot admitting that the purpose of the law is to force unwilling private entities to promote conservative viewpoints is likely to be front and center in the ruling striking it down as an overt free speech violation. That's the part you are supposed to at least make opponents catch you saying privately to a friendly audience to prove their point...

leggomuhgreggo 5y ago
You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored? I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored? No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism, or improper effect can make a law unconstitutional.
  - propogandist 5y ago
    the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint. The recent events, where conservative voices were targeted by big tech, was the catalyst for the law, but that doesn't make it illegal.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint. You seem to be assuming a facially neutral law with a viewpoint specific purpose is Constitutional. It is not. Usually, its harder to prove an improper purpose for a facially-neutral law, but then usually the people passing and signing a law with an improper purpose don't just public announce the viewpoint they are seeking to advance.

akerl_ 5y ago

Am I missing something, or is this a clear cut reversal the first time this law finds itself in front of the Supreme Court?

hindsightbias 5y ago
Legislation is mostly performance art there.
- backtoyoujim 5y ago
  And the Texas state constitution has almost 700 amendments.
salawat 5y ago
Until you add some teeth to "Congress shall pass no law" beyond wasting everyone's time, this is a largely symbolic gesture.
conductr 5y ago
All these new Texas laws will be ruled against, likely before the Supreme Court. It’s all for naught and likely going to cost Abbott his job. We’ll see how strong the Texas conservatives are but I think these laws have them divided. They were insanely unified during Trump’s era and that’s how we got here.
- epakai 5y ago
  It probably helps him keep his job. At the moment Abbott doesn't really have an Democrat opponent. His biggest concerns are being primaried by more Trumpian politicians.
- bradknowles 5y ago
  It’s performance art by politicians. Playing to the rabid fringe, even though you know it’s all gonna get tossed. And when it does get tossed, that will enrage them more and you can squeeze them again for more donations. Problem is, it manages to do some real damage and really hurt some people in the meanwhile.

AnnoyedComment 5y ago

We'll see if it helps stop the blatant partisanship or not.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
So blatant Facebook PR is trying to distract people from the fact that 8 of the top 10 posts each day are from Breitbart et al Yes, "conservative" accounts get banned more often than "progressive" ones. Or, at least, that's how it may appear if your definition of "conservative" is dominated by racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia. Which isn't entirely wrong, obviously: traditionally, the ideology that despised all deviations from the norm just came with a different label, fascism.
thephyber 5y ago
Almost no chance of that. This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence? I’ve worked at a large social media company (one most people would not recognize). The loud users that get banned almost always play up the “I didn’t do anything wrong” card but the moderation department has the evidence that they very blatantly did violate the objective standards of the site. The problem is that the public doesn’t see the evidence that the moderation department does, so they are outraged after only looking at half of a ledger.
- chuckee 5y ago
  > This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. On the other hand, freedom of association didn't stop the civil rights act. But freedom of association is less clearly defined in the constitution. Maybe a better example are the many regulations on commercial speech that exist despite the 1st amendment.
  - thephyber 5y ago

mikewarot 5y ago

It seems like Texas, as a whole, has decided to commit economic and political suicide. From the self inflicted failures of the power and gas infrastructure last winter, to the latest assault on women, this law could potentially have all social media ban Texas residents.

bluedevil2k 5y ago
> potentially have all social media ban Texas residents The productivity gains from this action would far outweigh any economic loss.
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  But the rise in invincible spam would make sites like StackOverflow think twice about accepting questions from Texans.
collectedparts 5y ago
And yet: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2021/08/24/texas-is-out-competing-every-state-in-the-race-for-california-company-relocations/ https://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2021/08/24/texas... (Granted, that is from prior to these most recent fiascos.)
Banana699 5y ago
>It seems like Texas, as a whole, has decided to commit economic and political suicide. Not really, corporations don't give a heck about rights or principles, only regulations and laws. Corporations verbally obey and pay lip service to the moral fashions of the perceived memetic majority, that's the user interface. The backend is a ruthless optimization engine maximizing a very specific utility function and caring for literally nothing else.

Barrin92 5y ago

The fact aside as others have pointed out that this basically a reversal of what free speech means, the other thing is, since when is an institution, merely because it has public character, required to tolerate all political viewpoints? Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism. It's a very weird, sort of "in your face"-ism. Freedom of assembly means that said assembly can deny people entry or be exclusionary. That's just how a pluralistic society works. Also it's a very non-conservative idea, a sort of political gender quota

dudydyevr 5y ago
Boohoo, companies worth billions of dollars and workers worth millions of dollars might have to support viewpoints contrary to their own. What a loss for the common man to have enforced neutrality.
Aerroon 5y ago
Should phone companies be able to ban people for their political opinions? ISPs? The water company? The electricity company? Why do they have to tolerate people using their services to push some political viewpoints?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Let's say there is an easement should there be right to block use of that based on political options. After all it is private property.
leggomuhgreggo 5y ago
The more worrisome "inversion of speech" would seem to be that institutions have the same free speech rights as humans. Social media platforms are increasingly akin to the pubic forums of old, where essentially all meaningful exchange of ideas takes place — and where excommunication functions like "free speech zones" designed to marginalize and render the exercise of political expression inert. I would suggest a relevant precedent might be laws limiting media ownership. I'd also point out that institutions of a certain size exercise control over human in a similar way to governments — and the "private business" distinction becomes increasingly blurry when we consider how deeply these companies collide with law enforcement and govt agencies to censor information. It's a complicated topic!

iammisc 5y ago

As a conservative, I'm against this law as it is government overreach. Instead, Texas should tax Facebook several millions of dollars for all Texas residents who are on Facebook (and all social media with more than X subscribers). The law should be written as a measure for the public health and should cite numerous studies pointing out the toxic effect of social media. The end goal should be to get Texans off social media and to end facebooks monopoly. No one needs social media. It is toxic. It should be treated like tobacco is -- a disgusting habit some engage in. But that would require the republican party to actually be effective and bold and do what it's voters want.

dimator 5y ago
I'm progressive, and I would completely be behind this policy. Unfortunately, both parties need campaign funds, and so they'll both concede to social media lobbyists. Until we solve campaign finance reform, no progress will be made on even the most agreeable of policy positions, as long as there are deep pockets opposed.
radu_floricica 5y ago
Uhh... wouldn't applying this to junk food be like "let's tax all McDonalds out of existence because people eat too many Big Macs"? Or is it an example of Poe's law in action?
sufiaarsala 5y ago
Taxes are very important for run any business and grow up. Taxes make your business secure and save for a bad websites. I also run a small business and I hired a SEO Experts (https://seoexperts.pk/ https://seoexperts.pk/) for my work and it site pay all taxes time to time and gives the best services.
ttymck 5y ago
Should the government also target gambling, alcohol and pornography? Should companies in those fields be taxed as well? How do you measure how many Texans consume porn, and from which producers? Are you taxing the studios or the distributors? How many Texans drink Smirnoff?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Aerroon 5y ago

>The new law states social media platforms with more than 50 million users cannot ban people based on their political viewpoints. With an exemption that large this doesn't seem too unreasonable. We don't let the phone company ban you for political speech in their platform (the phone call), do we?

ttyprintk 5y ago
Other comments about the phone company answered this better, but the phone company is not offering an attractive option to block all crackpot phone calls coming in.

Goety 5y ago

It's hard to ignore how california and texas are being attacked and yet biden does nothing

throwawaysea 5y ago

Social media companies have too much power. As Justice Clarence Thomas articulated, big social media platforms should be treated as common carriers (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-right-about-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-ri...). They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. They are the new public square where civil liberties like free speech are most frequently exercised. Viewpoint discrimination on these platforms is bad for a liberal society, and plainly oppressive. Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. There are many ways in which they can be legally compelled to carry speech, as a UCLA Professor recently analyzed (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and-treating-social-media-platforms-as-common-carriers/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and...).

filoeleven 5y ago
> They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. Oh, but they are! My phone company makes no attempt to influence the content of my voice or text conversations, nor how I use my data plan. Facebook/Twitter do their very best to tailor what I see to keep me scrolling and “engaged.” If this is the new public square, the crack dealers are already selling, and in fact are the ones who built the square. I think I like the idea of social media as common carrier. It would require vast changes in how their apps are designed though. > Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. This seems like a bad idea, unless you want to elevate the status of political affiliation to that of religion, and expect violations of that protection to be enforced just as unevenly.
klyrs 5y ago
> Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. What's special about a political viewpoint? How do you even define "political viewpoint"? Is it different from a "religious viewpoint"? Is it different from a run-of-the-mill opinion?
- ttyprintk 5y ago