31 ms·

It isn't often that I see a case which really could change the internet. Particularly eye-opening was https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/20

by btilly 3y ago

It isn't often that I see a case which really could change the internet. Particularly eye-opening was https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/20231207085704906_231206a%20AC%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023... - an amicus brief from the moderators of the subreddits r/law and r/SCOTUS. It brought home how different a world with laws like this could be. And I had to laugh at pages 15-22. "We aren't going to argue the law. We're just going to show you the content that we are moderating." Followed by screenshots of attacks, many of them death threats, aimed at the Supreme Court. That's one way to get a judge's attention! Arguments were heard yesterday. Luckily https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1233506273/supreme-court-social-media-laws https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1233506273/supreme-court-soci... suggests that the justices were skeptical of the Florida and Texas laws. Arguments are being heard today. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-555 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-555 links to a current recording.

michaelt 3y ago
Wow, that's a great find! You don't even have to read beyond the table of contents:- > TABLE OF CONTENTS [...] > ARGUMENT ............... 6 > Amici Censor Irrelevant and Inappropriate Speech to Cultivate Healthy Online Communities Built on Common Interests. This Includes Removing Death Threats Aimed at Members of This Court. ........... 9 > Amici Could Be Sued for Censoring Internet Trolls Who Are Calling for the Execution of Supreme Court Justices. ........ 19 > Those Who Are “Censored” by Amici Can Speak Elsewhere. ........... 22
japhyr 3y ago
That was a fantastic read. My favorite excerpt: > These laws are not about protecting speech. They’re about politicians ensuring that a favored constituency has access to someone else’s megaphone to spread a message I was a high school teacher for a long time. When explaining to students how I facilitated discussion in the classroom, I talked with them about the idea of the loudest voice. If you don't moderate a discussion thoughtfully, it will be taken over by the few people with the loudest voices. We see this same dynamic all the time in online communities. Moderators quiet the loudest voices so everyone else can have a meaningful conversation. These laws are aimed at letting the loudest people shout everyone else down, so the people trying to hold onto power can't be challenged.
- sanity 3y ago
  > They’re about politicians ensuring that a favored constituency has access to someone else’s megaphone to spread a message I think this is an inaccurate characterization. Over the past 20 years content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers. If the platform's willingness to abuse this power had been apparent from the start they would never have become so powerful. People created their own "megaphones" over many years only for the platform to start dictating to them how they can communicate with the audiences they've built, often based on naked political animus. It was a bait and switch - a fraud. That said, having listened to most of the oral arguments I think SCOTUS will strike down these laws. The fundamental problem is that the Internet centralizes power in a small number of corporations which then become ripe for capture by powerful interests, whether political, ideological, or commercial. IMO the ultimate solution is a decentralized Internet like https://freenet.org/ https://freenet.org/ that doesn't require creators to hand over control of their voices to powerful third parties.
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >Over the past 20 years content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers. That's a strong assertion. Do you have any evidence to back that up? AIUI, the law governing this (at least in the US -- which is relevant since we're discussing US state laws being challenged in the courts) is the Communications Decency Act of 1996[0], with section 230[1] of that law being the pointy end of the stick WRT these particulars. I would also point out that the above serves as a front-end (in that it allows the courts to reject lawsuits misdirected at platforms, when they should be directed at the source of the speech) to the First Amendment[2]. Please detail where, exactly, any of the above supports the claim that "content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers." Perhaps I'm missing something important (which is certainly possible) and I'd appreciate being enlightened. As such, I look forward to your response. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... Edit: Cleaned up prose. Additional Edit: I'm responding to [3] below as I am apparently rate limited and wanted to make sure I was clear in what I'm trying to say as I am pretty passionate about it: That's as may be, and I remember it fondly too. However, it wasn't by government or the law that "content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms..." Rather it was those platforms themselves. It would be easy for me to just say "sucker! you've been rooked!" and leave it at that. However, I'll (attempt to) respond substantively by saying that the surveillance capitalism[4] business model was still nascent and there were many more options for interpersonal interaction back then. It was inevitable that after the consolidation of "social" media that advertiser influence (since they're actually the customers -- not you) would be paramount to these platforms. And that's what drives the moderation/censorship folks are complaining about -- because advertisers don't want to be associated with anything controversial, they just want you to buy their products/services and (the advertisers and the platforms as well as various middlemen) collect (ala [4]) as much information about you as they can to aid in that process. [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39527216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39527216 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
psunavy03 3y ago
Somewhat ironic considering the mods of those subs have deliberately banned anyone who disagrees with their political slant and stickied a post at the top of one of them stating words to the effect of "this is not the place to be wrong and belligerent about it." But I guess a bunch of people that full of themselves are full enough of themselves to think that SCOTUS is going to care about an amicus written by a bunch of anonymous Internet people. Sure, they moderate death threats, but they also moderate away anything they might have to disagree with. And then pull stunts on the order of "I'll reinstate your account if you write a 500-word essay on why you're wrong."
WatchDog 3y ago
> Amici moderate the social media platforms r/law and r/SCOTUS on the website reddit.com. Through content curation and careful moderation, they have built and maintained a significant audience interested in viewing and constructively contributing to these internet forums. I would argue that the reason these subreddits are successful, has little to do with the moderation, most successful subreddits are simply successful because they have good real estate. They were simply the first to snatch up the common nouns "law" and "SCOTUS".
skissane 3y ago
> Particularly eye-opening was https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023... - an amicus brief from the moderators of the subreddits r/law and r/SCOTUS They write: > Under the challenged laws, removal of such a scintillating contribution to legal discourse would require amici to provide HateSpeechLuvr with an individualized explanation for the removal, and expose amici to the risk of legal action by the state, or, more dangerously, private actors (like Mr. Luvr). Do the challenged laws actually apply to Reddit moderators, as opposed to Reddit the corporation? I don't think on a plain reading they actually do. Both the Florida and Texas laws apply to actions by "social media platforms". Reddit itself is a "social media platform", but I don't think an individual volunteer Reddit moderator is – so I don't think this law would apply directly to them. In any event, were SCOTUS to uphold these laws, they could make clear the scope of their application in upholding them, such that private individuals such as volunteer Reddit moderators were clearly excluded from it. And the "scintillating contribution" it is talking about is a single sentence with no meaningful content, just an extremely defamatory insult which includes the n-word. Even if SCOTUS upholds these laws, I doubt any attempt to challenge the moderation of that specific contribution is going to succeed in the courts.

by btilly 3y ago

michaelt 3y ago

Wow, that's a great find! You don't even have to read beyond the table of contents:- > TABLE OF CONTENTS [...] > ARGUMENT ............... 6 > Amici Censor Irrelevant and Inappropriate Speech to Cultivate Healthy Online Communities Built on Common Interests. This Includes Removing Death Threats Aimed at Members of This Court. ........... 9 > Amici Could Be Sued for Censoring Internet Trolls Who Are Calling for the Execution of Supreme Court Justices. ........ 19 > Those Who Are “Censored” by Amici Can Speak Elsewhere. ........... 22

japhyr 3y ago

That was a fantastic read. My favorite excerpt: > These laws are not about protecting speech. They’re about politicians ensuring that a favored constituency has access to someone else’s megaphone to spread a message I was a high school teacher for a long time. When explaining to students how I facilitated discussion in the classroom, I talked with them about the idea of the loudest voice. If you don't moderate a discussion thoughtfully, it will be taken over by the few people with the loudest voices. We see this same dynamic all the time in online communities. Moderators quiet the loudest voices so everyone else can have a meaningful conversation. These laws are aimed at letting the loudest people shout everyone else down, so the people trying to hold onto power can't be challenged.

sanity 3y ago
> They’re about politicians ensuring that a favored constituency has access to someone else’s megaphone to spread a message I think this is an inaccurate characterization. Over the past 20 years content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers. If the platform's willingness to abuse this power had been apparent from the start they would never have become so powerful. People created their own "megaphones" over many years only for the platform to start dictating to them how they can communicate with the audiences they've built, often based on naked political animus. It was a bait and switch - a fraud. That said, having listened to most of the oral arguments I think SCOTUS will strike down these laws. The fundamental problem is that the Internet centralizes power in a small number of corporations which then become ripe for capture by powerful interests, whether political, ideological, or commercial. IMO the ultimate solution is a decentralized Internet like https://freenet.org/ https://freenet.org/ that doesn't require creators to hand over control of their voices to powerful third parties.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >Over the past 20 years content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers. That's a strong assertion. Do you have any evidence to back that up? AIUI, the law governing this (at least in the US -- which is relevant since we're discussing US state laws being challenged in the courts) is the Communications Decency Act of 1996[0], with section 230[1] of that law being the pointy end of the stick WRT these particulars. I would also point out that the above serves as a front-end (in that it allows the courts to reject lawsuits misdirected at platforms, when they should be directed at the source of the speech) to the First Amendment[2]. Please detail where, exactly, any of the above supports the claim that "content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers." Perhaps I'm missing something important (which is certainly possible) and I'd appreciate being enlightened. As such, I look forward to your response. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... Edit: Cleaned up prose. Additional Edit: I'm responding to [3] below as I am apparently rate limited and wanted to make sure I was clear in what I'm trying to say as I am pretty passionate about it: That's as may be, and I remember it fondly too. However, it wasn't by government or the law that "content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms..." Rather it was those platforms themselves. It would be easy for me to just say "sucker! you've been rooked!" and leave it at that. However, I'll (attempt to) respond substantively by saying that the surveillance capitalism[4] business model was still nascent and there were many more options for interpersonal interaction back then. It was inevitable that after the consolidation of "social" media that advertiser influence (since they're actually the customers -- not you) would be paramount to these platforms. And that's what drives the moderation/censorship folks are complaining about -- because advertisers don't want to be associated with anything controversial, they just want you to buy their products/services and (the advertisers and the platforms as well as various middlemen) collect (ala [4]) as much information about you as they can to aid in that process. [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39527216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39527216 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

psunavy03 3y ago

Somewhat ironic considering the mods of those subs have deliberately banned anyone who disagrees with their political slant and stickied a post at the top of one of them stating words to the effect of "this is not the place to be wrong and belligerent about it." But I guess a bunch of people that full of themselves are full enough of themselves to think that SCOTUS is going to care about an amicus written by a bunch of anonymous Internet people. Sure, they moderate death threats, but they also moderate away anything they might have to disagree with. And then pull stunts on the order of "I'll reinstate your account if you write a 500-word essay on why you're wrong."

WatchDog 3y ago

> Amici moderate the social media platforms r/law and r/SCOTUS on the website reddit.com. Through content curation and careful moderation, they have built and maintained a significant audience interested in viewing and constructively contributing to these internet forums. I would argue that the reason these subreddits are successful, has little to do with the moderation, most successful subreddits are simply successful because they have good real estate. They were simply the first to snatch up the common nouns "law" and "SCOTUS".

skissane 3y ago

> Particularly eye-opening was https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/292540/2023... - an amicus brief from the moderators of the subreddits r/law and r/SCOTUS They write: > Under the challenged laws, removal of such a scintillating contribution to legal discourse would require amici to provide HateSpeechLuvr with an individualized explanation for the removal, and expose amici to the risk of legal action by the state, or, more dangerously, private actors (like Mr. Luvr). Do the challenged laws actually apply to Reddit moderators, as opposed to Reddit the corporation? I don't think on a plain reading they actually do. Both the Florida and Texas laws apply to actions by "social media platforms". Reddit itself is a "social media platform", but I don't think an individual volunteer Reddit moderator is – so I don't think this law would apply directly to them. In any event, were SCOTUS to uphold these laws, they could make clear the scope of their application in upholding them, such that private individuals such as volunteer Reddit moderators were clearly excluded from it. And the "scintillating contribution" it is talking about is a single sentence with no meaningful content, just an extremely defamatory insult which includes the n-word. Even if SCOTUS upholds these laws, I doubt any attempt to challenge the moderation of that specific contribution is going to succeed in the courts.