6 ms·

> a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech .. That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will

> a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech .. That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. They don't knock on your door and say you better stop expressing these views or we will harm you. They don't even harass people online. They just simply choose which speech they will pass on and which not. If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech". Of course not. Rather it is the case that you don't have the right to demand that I pass on your emails to all my contacts. This is bad jurisprudence. I wonder, was this judge perhaps nominated by D. Trump?

jeff-davis 4y ago
"choose which speech they will AMPLIFY" That makes private messages an interesting question, though. Or even cases where many people explicitly subscribe to a single voice -- is the platform really amplifying anything? Blocking such messages (to specific recipients who specifically opt to receive them) seems materially different than declining to promote/amplify such messages. I'm speaking from an ethical standpoint; it may or may not matter legally.
wernercd 4y ago
"that is not the same as muzzling" They are actively blocking stories about Biden. Actively filtering stories about negative aspects of COVID vaccines. They are actively filtering stories about inconsistencies in the 2020 election - "The most secure ever". They are amplifying stuff - absolutely... but they are also censoring free speech because "corporations are allowed too". "If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech"." No... but if you post a story and your account gets banned for stuff that's later found out to be true (IE: hunters laptop and the New York Post RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION)? that's absolutely muzzling speech and suppressing facts.
- Hallucinaut 4y ago
  "They" also ban anyone not supporting Trump from posting to their site ...or from forever blocking nonsense unscientific articles from a newsfeed ...or from wearing a shirt that's pro-Democrat at a convention ...or from bringing scientific consensus into Fox talking heads shows ...or from posting on their subreddit unless certified by a peer as being sufficiently conservative That your post focuses singularly on denial of Republican establishment talking points shows the real intent implied by those pushing such laws, without any consideration that the "cancel culture" has been a deep tradition pervasive in media and American life on both sides of the aisle.
- mpalmer 4y ago
  Using "actively" as emphasis is so, so tired. You're implying without evidence that they're doing it as part of some pro-Biden strategy. Why? Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. Do you support the Citizens United decision?
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    > Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. I'm fine with allowing them to censor speech if they also are liable for the speech they do choose to publish, just like any other individual, newspaper, or publisher would be. Platforms cannot simultaneously claim that: (1) They are mere conduits for other people's speech, and thus, deserve to be shielded from any liability for what they publish (2) What they publish is their own speech, and thus, their publication choices should be considered protected expression under the first amendment.
    - mpalmer 4y ago
      I was under the impression that the law isn't quite settled on this point. I certainly am not going to pretend to understand the legal interests at play in this question. Why exactly should I be suing YouTube for hosting someone else's libel?
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        The law is very settled when it comes to publishers and common carriers, and has been for very long time. If Fox News publishes libel, they can’t just claim that they’re hosting someone else’s reporting. If a telecommunications provider publishes someone’s libel, they are shielded from liability as a common carrier. In exchange, however, they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public. If FedEx delivers controlled substances as part of their usual course of business, they are also shielded from liability as a common carrier, but the same responsibility to serve the general public applies. YouTube and other “interactive computer services”, however, were granted an explicit privileged shield from liability by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, with none of the responsibilities historically associated with that privilege. Without the CDA, Twitter wouldn’t exist; they’d have been sued into oblivion long ago. Instead of solving that problem by extending our well-understood common carrier framework to “interactive computer services”, we granted them a massive privilege and asked for nothing in return.
concinds 4y ago
> Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY I'll readily admit that algorithms can amplify content; but more than enough people have been tweeting for years and barely have any likes on their tweets (see @CNN, though I'm being cheeky). People say that algorithms reward bad content, because they amplify controversy; but really they just give people what they want. A "controversial" tweet with no likes won't get amplified. The crux is that if you agree that due to their use of algorithms, these platforms "amplify" all the content they host, then surely that means they endorse whatever they don't ban, to some extent? I'm not making a legal argument, just an intuitive one. That reasoning doesn't scale to an understaffed, undermoderated social media platform that can't even ban the omnipresent "double your crypto" scam accounts.
lettergram 4y ago
> That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. It depends, can I go to the mall and start preaching the gospel? The answer is yes - at least in NYC, SF, Chicago, etc (where these legal cases have played out). I’m legally aloud to do that; and as it’s the public square I cannot legally be removed (doesn’t mean you wont). It is considered the commons and open to the public. Inside a store is not the same thing, some jurisdictions have various rules. Now back to this discussion. I agree a company wouldn’t be obligated to amplify, ie promote via an algorithm. That said, they shouldn’t remove someone’s ability to share political speech. On social media platforms they have been banning people for just that. Social media is the commons, as such anyone should be able to preach to the masses. Though, perhaps it’ll be limited to only those who follow them. That said, I think the Texas law is kinda stupid. Because the tech companies have claimed they ban for other reasons such as: misinformation — challenging elections, questioning vaccines, questioning masks, etc all get banned. None of them are directly political in nature. However, only one political party rejects that stuff… that said, arguably I could go to a mall and preach any of those. The same protections should apply.
- etchalon 4y ago
  "Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    For many, many people the internet doesn’t really exist outside of a few FAANG apps. Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it? Add to that platforms such as Facebook groups and Reddit subreddits, where the individual groups are much more like stalls and the platform is like the mall.
    - likeclockwork 4y ago
      No one's entitled to an audience.
hackerlight 4y ago
One nuance these judges don't understand is that picking one person to amplify is often de facto muzzling another because bandwidth is finite in the age of zero friction social media. These dinosaurs are trapped in a 20th century paradigm.
- brightball 4y ago
  Even in a 20th century paradigm, opportunity cost exists. Something gets more time or budget, something else gets less.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Social media has dramatically magnified these preexisting 'material contradictions' to America's sociolegal conception of free speech. The absurdities are becoming larger and larger and cracks are showing. Stochastic terrorist there. Fascist elected here. 500k anti-vaxxer deaths over there. What will come first, will the dam finally break in the form of society collapsing into conspiracy driven dictatorship, or will the ideologues realize that their constructs can't cope with the modern world?
    - brightball 4y ago
      What is a stochastic terrorist?
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        A perpetrator of stochastic terrorism. In this context, a lone wolf who is radicalized online.
      - detaro 4y ago
        "Stochastic terrorism" is the concept that a media campaign with large enough reach that vilifies and dehumanizes a target group will cause a rise in attacks against them, without any central planning who is attacking whom when, but rather because it pushes random (hence "stochastic") at-risk people to commit random attacks.

jeff-davis 4y ago

"choose which speech they will AMPLIFY" That makes private messages an interesting question, though. Or even cases where many people explicitly subscribe to a single voice -- is the platform really amplifying anything? Blocking such messages (to specific recipients who specifically opt to receive them) seems materially different than declining to promote/amplify such messages. I'm speaking from an ethical standpoint; it may or may not matter legally.

wernercd 4y ago

"that is not the same as muzzling" They are actively blocking stories about Biden. Actively filtering stories about negative aspects of COVID vaccines. They are actively filtering stories about inconsistencies in the 2020 election - "The most secure ever". They are amplifying stuff - absolutely... but they are also censoring free speech because "corporations are allowed too". "If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech"." No... but if you post a story and your account gets banned for stuff that's later found out to be true (IE: hunters laptop and the New York Post RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION)? that's absolutely muzzling speech and suppressing facts.

Hallucinaut 4y ago
"They" also ban anyone not supporting Trump from posting to their site ...or from forever blocking nonsense unscientific articles from a newsfeed ...or from wearing a shirt that's pro-Democrat at a convention ...or from bringing scientific consensus into Fox talking heads shows ...or from posting on their subreddit unless certified by a peer as being sufficiently conservative That your post focuses singularly on denial of Republican establishment talking points shows the real intent implied by those pushing such laws, without any consideration that the "cancel culture" has been a deep tradition pervasive in media and American life on both sides of the aisle.
mpalmer 4y ago
Using "actively" as emphasis is so, so tired. You're implying without evidence that they're doing it as part of some pro-Biden strategy. Why? Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. Do you support the Citizens United decision?
- catiopatio 4y ago
  > Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. I'm fine with allowing them to censor speech if they also are liable for the speech they do choose to publish, just like any other individual, newspaper, or publisher would be. Platforms cannot simultaneously claim that: (1) They are mere conduits for other people's speech, and thus, deserve to be shielded from any liability for what they publish (2) What they publish is their own speech, and thus, their publication choices should be considered protected expression under the first amendment.
  - mpalmer 4y ago
    I was under the impression that the law isn't quite settled on this point. I certainly am not going to pretend to understand the legal interests at play in this question. Why exactly should I be suing YouTube for hosting someone else's libel?
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      The law is very settled when it comes to publishers and common carriers, and has been for very long time. If Fox News publishes libel, they can’t just claim that they’re hosting someone else’s reporting. If a telecommunications provider publishes someone’s libel, they are shielded from liability as a common carrier. In exchange, however, they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public. If FedEx delivers controlled substances as part of their usual course of business, they are also shielded from liability as a common carrier, but the same responsibility to serve the general public applies. YouTube and other “interactive computer services”, however, were granted an explicit privileged shield from liability by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, with none of the responsibilities historically associated with that privilege. Without the CDA, Twitter wouldn’t exist; they’d have been sued into oblivion long ago. Instead of solving that problem by extending our well-understood common carrier framework to “interactive computer services”, we granted them a massive privilege and asked for nothing in return.

concinds 4y ago

> Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY I'll readily admit that algorithms can amplify content; but more than enough people have been tweeting for years and barely have any likes on their tweets (see @CNN, though I'm being cheeky). People say that algorithms reward bad content, because they amplify controversy; but really they just give people what they want. A "controversial" tweet with no likes won't get amplified. The crux is that if you agree that due to their use of algorithms, these platforms "amplify" all the content they host, then surely that means they endorse whatever they don't ban, to some extent? I'm not making a legal argument, just an intuitive one. That reasoning doesn't scale to an understaffed, undermoderated social media platform that can't even ban the omnipresent "double your crypto" scam accounts.

lettergram 4y ago

> That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. It depends, can I go to the mall and start preaching the gospel? The answer is yes - at least in NYC, SF, Chicago, etc (where these legal cases have played out). I’m legally aloud to do that; and as it’s the public square I cannot legally be removed (doesn’t mean you wont). It is considered the commons and open to the public. Inside a store is not the same thing, some jurisdictions have various rules. Now back to this discussion. I agree a company wouldn’t be obligated to amplify, ie promote via an algorithm. That said, they shouldn’t remove someone’s ability to share political speech. On social media platforms they have been banning people for just that. Social media is the commons, as such anyone should be able to preach to the masses. Though, perhaps it’ll be limited to only those who follow them. That said, I think the Texas law is kinda stupid. Because the tech companies have claimed they ban for other reasons such as: misinformation — challenging elections, questioning vaccines, questioning masks, etc all get banned. None of them are directly political in nature. However, only one political party rejects that stuff… that said, arguably I could go to a mall and preach any of those. The same protections should apply.

etchalon 4y ago
"Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  For many, many people the internet doesn’t really exist outside of a few FAANG apps. Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it? Add to that platforms such as Facebook groups and Reddit subreddits, where the individual groups are much more like stalls and the platform is like the mall.
  - likeclockwork 4y ago
    No one's entitled to an audience.

hackerlight 4y ago

One nuance these judges don't understand is that picking one person to amplify is often de facto muzzling another because bandwidth is finite in the age of zero friction social media. These dinosaurs are trapped in a 20th century paradigm.

brightball 4y ago
Even in a 20th century paradigm, opportunity cost exists. Something gets more time or budget, something else gets less.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Social media has dramatically magnified these preexisting 'material contradictions' to America's sociolegal conception of free speech. The absurdities are becoming larger and larger and cracks are showing. Stochastic terrorist there. Fascist elected here. 500k anti-vaxxer deaths over there. What will come first, will the dam finally break in the form of society collapsing into conspiracy driven dictatorship, or will the ideologues realize that their constructs can't cope with the modern world?
  - brightball 4y ago
    What is a stochastic terrorist?
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      A perpetrator of stochastic terrorism. In this context, a lone wolf who is radicalized online.
    - detaro 4y ago
      "Stochastic terrorism" is the concept that a media campaign with large enough reach that vilifies and dehumanizes a target group will cause a rise in attacks against them, without any central planning who is attacking whom when, but rather because it pushes random (hence "stochastic") at-risk people to commit random attacks.