4 ms·
“Radical” ruling lets Texas ban social media moderation based on “viewpoint”
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 4y agoThis was an inevitability of the right-wing "cancel culture" narrative. If you want to keep people from being fired for being bigots, but you want to protect the right to fire people for any reason at any time, there's nothing you can do other than to make "bigot" a protected class. I'm waiting for people to self-identify as bigots, or for it to be a choice on the census under race or religion.
- quantified 4y agoYou need to be able to teach the other side of the Holocaust somewhere in a free country, right?
- williamtwild 4y agoare you being serious?
- quantified 4y agoNo. Thank you for asking. Recall [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/19/texas-holocaust-curriculum-schools-hb-3979 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/19/texas-...] reported by other outlets too if the Guardian isn’t to your taste.
- commandlinefan 4y agoSocial media moderators really brought this on themselves.
- suture 4y agoIt seems to me to be a strange stance by conservatives. On the one hand they think a business ought to be able to not serve certain protected classes and on the other hand want to be treated like a protected class.
- Avshalom 4y agoAn outgroup which laws which bind but do not protect and an in group which the law protects but does not bind.
- jqpabc123 4y agoSeems totally illogical doesn't it? Which explains why it makes perfect sense to conservatives.
- krapp 4y ago
- cato_the_elder 4y agoNot all conservatives are libertarians.
- suture 4y agoWhen talking about a movement with a large number of people one has to generalize a bit. It’s ok to say members of X are Y even when there exists at least one counter example.
- cato_the_elder 4y agoWell, even the claim that most US conservatives are libertarians is kinda dubious. Broadly, conservatism in the US has three branches: social conservatives, libertarians, and foreign policy hawks. Their common distaste for communism made allies.
- jqpabc123 4y agoCan't wait to see how this is applied on "Truth Social".
- klyrs 4y agoDoesn't look like it applies, the law says that social media sites with the most users are common carriers.
- weare138 4y agoLike the article mentions how would they even enforce it though? It's a state law so it would only be enforceable on companies based in Texas or possibly content hosted in Texas and they can't demand information about or regulate users outside of Texas. This will just result in social media companies requiring people from Texas to verify their identities to use their platforms in Texas which I'm sure will go over great with voters in Texas.
- klyrs 4y agoI have no clue how they'd even hope to enforce it. But if somebody tried to sue Truth over it, they'd almost certainly point to their negligible market penetration as a reason they aren't a common carrier.
- weare138 4y agoIf this law gets passed it will backfire spectacularly.
- qgin 4y agoMaybe social media companies can declare themselves "religious businesses" and bypass this new regulation since just last year, this happened in Texas: > Federal judge in Texas rules in favor of religious businesses over LGBTQ discrimination claims > A federal judge ruled Sunday that for-profit businesses that have sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to abide by LGBTQ discrimination claims, a blow to the previous ruling in the Supreme Court that protected sexual orientation and gender identity from discrimination, according to The Dallas Morning News. https://thehill.com/legal/579816-federal-judge-in-texas-rules-in-favor-of-religious-businesses-over-lgbtq-discrimination/ https://thehill.com/legal/579816-federal-judge-in-texas-rule...
- klyrs 4y agoYouTube got some people pretty hot and bothered when they demonetized some LGBT content because of advertiser preferences. I'm curious to see how that one plays out under this law...