4 ms·
I posted this because I think that I like this law ..large corporations shouldn't be in the business of deciding what speech is acceptable...
by Vladimof 4y ago
I posted this because I think that I like this law ..large corporations shouldn't be in the business of deciding what speech is acceptable...
- kwertyoowiyop 4y agoThis isn’t about who gets to speak, it’s about who gets a free megaphone.
- Vladimof 4y agoI keep hearing this, but if everyone has a megaphone, I don't see the issue... it's not like you have time to listen to everyone. In other words, you get flooded with information and it isn't really a megaphone anymore...
- kwertyoowiyop 4y agoYou only have a megaphone when your post gets amplified by ‘the algorithm’ and widely shown.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Vladimof 4y ago> kwertyoowiyop - You only have a megaphone when your post gets amplified by ‘the algorithm’ and widely shown. Are you saying that the companies ban people because the company itself decides to promote those users more then others because of their own algorithm? Just get rid of the algo? (They want the algo to control speech, but it looks likes it failing on them...)
- r2_pilot 4y agoContrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed section? Are there any exceptions to your rule of not moderating, such as illegal content or violence against specific people? If you want free speech, go to the government and/or host your own, nobody is stopping you from having your own megaphone on the street corner.
- mikecoles 4y agoBusinesses have been forced to bake cakes. Precedents have been set.
- notreallyserio 4y agoI'm pretty sure that's not true. If it's the case I'm thinking of the result was exactly the opposite. Do you have more details on what case you're referring to?
- wfhordie 4y agoThe Supreme Court overruled that about four years ago. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cake...
- mikecoles 4y agoIf you're murdered and the court finds you shouldn't have been murdered, that doesn't help you out much.
- bediger4000 4y agoYou know that went the other way? The precedent is that businesses don't have to bake cakes based on religious viewpoints. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162 Precedents have been set exactly the other way. This law looks like conservatives having a hissy fit that this time around market forces are keeping them from dominating all conversations, so they're making laws to enforce their social dominance.
- TexanFeller 4y agoBusinesses are not people and shouldn’t have the same rights. Hard no from me on the concept of corporate personhood.
- krapp 4y ago
- throwawaymanbot 4y ago
- colejohnson66 4y agoExcept the bill's author has said that basically anything covered by section 230 is exempted from the bill.[0] In other words, the bill's own author has said it is legally meaningless. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/17/author-of-texas-social-media-law-admits-that-he-meant-the-law-to-exempt-any-moderation-decisions-protected-by-section-230-thats-everything/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/17/author-of-texas-social-m...
- travisporter 4y agoPut a gun to my head if you dont want me to block "I made $2051 working from home" from my blog comments. I have a right to remove that.
- bediger4000 4y agoYes. Spammers/advertisers won't be able to resist externalizing the cost of their compulsive lying. This kind of law is the death of topical forums.