4 ms·

Should media companies be required to provide a platform for government leaders to broadcast their messages? To me this is basic 1st amendment stuff. We've gon

by jmull 4y ago

Should media companies be required to provide a platform for government leaders to broadcast their messages? To me this is basic 1st amendment stuff. We've gone pretty far down the road to authoritarianism when people think we need to protect the leader of the government's ability to force media companies to carry his messages.

rayiner 4y ago
It’s authoritarian when leaders force media companies to carry their messages because it puts the imprimatur of the New York Times or CNN on government propaganda. But Twitter isn’t a “media company” it’s a platform for user generated content. It doesn’t purport to have its own viewpoint, or its own editorial stance. Nobody at Twitter purports to stand behind the content posted by users in the site. In that respect Twitter is much closer to say broadband providers than to media companies. Even most opponents of Net Neutrality didn’t argue it was a First Amendment violation to regulate the terms on which third party content was carried. (Maybe they weren’t creative enough.) The question is whether the government can require a platform to host otherwise legal content on politically non-discriminatory terms. Put differently, it’s about whether platform owners can use their market power over what’s essentially infrastructure to distort the country’s political debate. Insofar as many folks on the left believe that corporations don’t have free speech rights period, it’s not “basic 1st amendment stuff.” And even for folks who think Citizens United was correctly decided, a company producing a political movie in its own name is much closer to core political speech than the moderation decisions of a user-generated content platform.
- jmull 4y ago
  > It doesn’t purport to have its own viewpoint, or its own editorial stance. The central issue here is whether government officials can override the moderation policies of these companies. The idea that twitter and other social media companies are just neutral platforms doesn't make any sense. Moderation and promotion of messages based on the content of the message has always been central to their business. Also, the idea that you can just call a company "a platform" and then the government can just start directing the content of its media operations is rather alarming. > Insofar as many folks on the left believe that corporations don’t have free speech rights period To the extent the first amendment has anything to do with free speech anymore, they do. "The press" would have to be understood as an organization, not individual people. I don't know much about your far left people, though.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > The idea that twitter and other social media companies are just neutral platforms doesn't make any sense. Moderation and promotion of messages based on the content of the message has always been central to their business. The issue isn’t neutrality, but rather expression. The First Amendment protect’s a person’s expression. It protects articles in the New York Times because those articles carry the imprimatur of the Times. When an article is published, the Times is the one speaking. Twitter may or may not purport to be neutral, but it does not claim that the content on its platform is its own speech. Nor does it even claim that it’s moderation expresses any message from Twitter. Indeed, if they banned Trump because they hate Trump, and were willing to stand behind that position, that might well be protected speech. But as you acknowledge, Twitter’s moderation and content promotion is just part of their business. They promote content they think users will like and moderate content they think users won’t. It’s like Google’s search results. Could the government prohibit Google from promoting its own products first and hiding the sites of its competitors in search results? Almost certainly. > Also, the idea that you can just call a company "a platform" and then the government can just start directing the content of its media operations is rather alarming. The difference between a “media outlet” and a “content platform” really isn’t a fine one, or at least Twitter isn’t anywhere close to the line. Is the company purporting to communicate a message? The New York Times is. CNN is. Twitter is not.
    - jmull 4y ago
      > It protects articles in the New York Times because those articles carry the imprimatur of the Times. If that were true it would create a loophole so big that the first amendment would practically not exist. The President could require the New York Times to carry a daily editorial on the front page from the desk of the president, with just with an additional caveat "This editorial does not reflect the opinions of the NYT". The President could require TV stations to broadcast speeches from the president speaking in the Rose Garden. > Could the government prohibit Google from promoting its own products first and hiding the sites of its competitors in search results? Almost certainly. You're just pointing out that the free speech guarantees of the first amendment aren't absolute, which isn't in dispute as far as I know. It doesn't follow though, that therefore the first amendment allows the government officials to dictate any content they want to be published by media companies. > Is the company purporting to communicate a message? Well, when twitter adds a fact-check to a tweet, they are obviously communicating a message.

by jmull 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

It’s authoritarian when leaders force media companies to carry their messages because it puts the imprimatur of the New York Times or CNN on government propaganda. But Twitter isn’t a “media company” it’s a platform for user generated content. It doesn’t purport to have its own viewpoint, or its own editorial stance. Nobody at Twitter purports to stand behind the content posted by users in the site. In that respect Twitter is much closer to say broadband providers than to media companies. Even most opponents of Net Neutrality didn’t argue it was a First Amendment violation to regulate the terms on which third party content was carried. (Maybe they weren’t creative enough.) The question is whether the government can require a platform to host otherwise legal content on politically non-discriminatory terms. Put differently, it’s about whether platform owners can use their market power over what’s essentially infrastructure to distort the country’s political debate. Insofar as many folks on the left believe that corporations don’t have free speech rights period, it’s not “basic 1st amendment stuff.” And even for folks who think Citizens United was correctly decided, a company producing a political movie in its own name is much closer to core political speech than the moderation decisions of a user-generated content platform.

jmull 4y ago
> It doesn’t purport to have its own viewpoint, or its own editorial stance. The central issue here is whether government officials can override the moderation policies of these companies. The idea that twitter and other social media companies are just neutral platforms doesn't make any sense. Moderation and promotion of messages based on the content of the message has always been central to their business. Also, the idea that you can just call a company "a platform" and then the government can just start directing the content of its media operations is rather alarming. > Insofar as many folks on the left believe that corporations don’t have free speech rights period To the extent the first amendment has anything to do with free speech anymore, they do. "The press" would have to be understood as an organization, not individual people. I don't know much about your far left people, though.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > The idea that twitter and other social media companies are just neutral platforms doesn't make any sense. Moderation and promotion of messages based on the content of the message has always been central to their business. The issue isn’t neutrality, but rather expression. The First Amendment protect’s a person’s expression. It protects articles in the New York Times because those articles carry the imprimatur of the Times. When an article is published, the Times is the one speaking. Twitter may or may not purport to be neutral, but it does not claim that the content on its platform is its own speech. Nor does it even claim that it’s moderation expresses any message from Twitter. Indeed, if they banned Trump because they hate Trump, and were willing to stand behind that position, that might well be protected speech. But as you acknowledge, Twitter’s moderation and content promotion is just part of their business. They promote content they think users will like and moderate content they think users won’t. It’s like Google’s search results. Could the government prohibit Google from promoting its own products first and hiding the sites of its competitors in search results? Almost certainly. > Also, the idea that you can just call a company "a platform" and then the government can just start directing the content of its media operations is rather alarming. The difference between a “media outlet” and a “content platform” really isn’t a fine one, or at least Twitter isn’t anywhere close to the line. Is the company purporting to communicate a message? The New York Times is. CNN is. Twitter is not.
  - jmull 4y ago
    > It protects articles in the New York Times because those articles carry the imprimatur of the Times. If that were true it would create a loophole so big that the first amendment would practically not exist. The President could require the New York Times to carry a daily editorial on the front page from the desk of the president, with just with an additional caveat "This editorial does not reflect the opinions of the NYT". The President could require TV stations to broadcast speeches from the president speaking in the Rose Garden. > Could the government prohibit Google from promoting its own products first and hiding the sites of its competitors in search results? Almost certainly. You're just pointing out that the free speech guarantees of the first amendment aren't absolute, which isn't in dispute as far as I know. It doesn't follow though, that therefore the first amendment allows the government officials to dictate any content they want to be published by media companies. > Is the company purporting to communicate a message? Well, when twitter adds a fact-check to a tweet, they are obviously communicating a message.