3 ms·
> his nonsense pro-authoritarian theories in support of Texas’ social media law that would have stripped companies of editorial discretion rights and enabled au
by Spivak 2y ago
> his nonsense pro-authoritarian theories in support of Texas’ social media law that would have stripped companies of editorial discretion rights and enabled authoritarian politicians to force companies to host messages they had no interest in associating with.
This right here I think is the absolutely fundamental tension. There are no good answers here because two people's abilities to speak are at odds. And while 1A provides an answer that spells out whose rights win out it's not clear whether this outcome is actually good.
We have public accommodation laws that very much violate a business's right to (non-) association because of burdensome effects discrimination has when no one will do business with you. And I think you can make a very strong case that the same laws could be necessary in a world where if a few large businesses refuse to do business with you it's functionally impossible to speak in any way that matters.
A 1A that upholds the speech of individual real humans above the speech of corporate entities when the two are in conflict I don't think would be a bad one.
> Social media is not that. It’s nothing like a common carrier.
The whole argument in the latter half of this article hinges on this and well… it's kind of arbitrary. Social media could be called a common carrier just as strongly as an airline could be said to curate a flying experience. Do I think the comments section of a blog post is a common carrier, no not really. But Facebook or Twitter have more
in common with an ISP than a newspaper.
- jonhohle 2y agoI interviewed at a non-profit that was not looked upon favorably by various big tech orgs. Microsoft had revoked their non-profit discount, Salesforce would not renew their contract. This org was operating completely legally, just supporting causes disliked by these groups. We’ve seen the same with banks refusing to do business with people because of their political or social affiliations. These seem ridiculous. Of course a business should have the ability to choose who they affiliate with, but if all businesses disassociate simultaneously, what recourse does an individual or organization have? At the same time, who would want to hold accounts for organizations universally considered “bad”? When the label of “bad” changes at social media speed, who is safe?
- Spivak 2y agoI completely agree with everything said here, this really is the heart of it. And I think folks feel so strongly about the right to what is essentially blacklisting certain people and organizations because it is one of the few ways you can "hurt" someone in polite society. As strange as it is I think we lost something when dueling and other violent extrajudicial justice stopped really being a thing. I don't want it back certainly but there is something to be said for the mediating effect that if you piss off enough people they might drag you out of your house and beat you half or fully to death. Or say literally burn down your house or business. There's a very real asymmetry where when someone materially hurts you or your community and you don't have one of the means that society has deemed acceptable to "hit back" with you're just stuck having to put up with it.
- cafard 2y agoExtrajudicial justice tends to be more extrajudicial than just. > literally burn down your house or business See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bom...