4 ms·

"that is not the same as muzzling" They are actively blocking stories about Biden. Actively filtering stories about negative aspects of COVID vaccines. They ar

"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.
      - mpalmer 4y ago
        > they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public Providing service without discriminating... how does holding all users accountable to the same terms of service not satisfy that requirement? I don't know of any cases where a person kicked off their ISP for torrenting subsequently denounced the ISP as a "publisher". Are you saying that we get to dictate to internet companies exactly what their services entail? Doesn't sound quite right to me. The idea that a single website is a common carrier seems to stretch the definition to the breaking point. It ignores the general understanding that common carrier designations tend to occur in situations involving natural monopolies. A website decides what information it takes in, stores, displays, and transfers. No one's rights are violated when they take information from you but don't display it anywhere else. You are not entitled to an audience on their infrastructure; go find a website who shares your ideas about how to operate. Really, I'm curious if you think making websites liable for the content their users post will actually further the goals of free expression on the Internet. When internet giants suddenly have a huge incentive to withhold content that powerful interests might sue over, what sort of platform for free expression do you think social media will end up becoming?

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.
    - mpalmer 4y ago
      > they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public Providing service without discriminating... how does holding all users accountable to the same terms of service not satisfy that requirement? I don't know of any cases where a person kicked off their ISP for torrenting subsequently denounced the ISP as a "publisher". Are you saying that we get to dictate to internet companies exactly what their services entail? Doesn't sound quite right to me. The idea that a single website is a common carrier seems to stretch the definition to the breaking point. It ignores the general understanding that common carrier designations tend to occur in situations involving natural monopolies. A website decides what information it takes in, stores, displays, and transfers. No one's rights are violated when they take information from you but don't display it anywhere else. You are not entitled to an audience on their infrastructure; go find a website who shares your ideas about how to operate. Really, I'm curious if you think making websites liable for the content their users post will actually further the goals of free expression on the Internet. When internet giants suddenly have a huge incentive to withhold content that powerful interests might sue over, what sort of platform for free expression do you think social media will end up becoming?