5 ms·

I know X is majority hated these days on here but this sounds like a great victory for all if they win imo

by nuz 2y ago

jonhohle 2y ago
This seems like possibly a winning strategy for anyone who is simultaneously deplatformed, debarked, etc. as well. It’s hard to disagree that there are pariahs that you’d not want as customers. On the other hand, I’d much rather live a world where the phone company operates phones and sells access to networks, ISPs sell server space, banks deal with financial instruments, and all of them leave their social, political, or moral stances to themselves. I don’t go to my local retailer for a lecture on the social injustice of the month. The idea of a Reddit style world where if you participate in one community, regardless of your behavior, you’ll be banned from another is about as distopian as it gets.
- peeters 2y ago
  According to the article, the only part illegal about "simultaneously deplatforming" someone would be if the action were coordinated by competitors ("we'll ban John Smith if you do too"). I don't think there would be an argument with the same legal reasoning if platforms independently decided to deplatform someone, or even if they saw another platform deplatform someone and let that influence their decision. The Reddit example might be closer to the type of coordination it targets, but it would be hard to apply anti-monopoly legislation to volunteer Reddit mods.
- haswell 2y ago
  I don’t think it makes sense to include X or any other social media in the same category as those lower level infrastructure services. I’d describe my feelings about the advertising boycott as very mixed, and think it’s worth maintaining a clear distinction between these categories of service. I’d find it equally dystopian to live in an environment that doesn’t allow companies to take a principled stance against obvious abuse or to stop spending money when a company goes through dramatic changes that fundamentally alter the advertising environment. What I’m most curious about is whether or not the boycotts were truly contingent vs. just centrally organized.
  - jonhohle 2y ago
    I wasn’t trying to relate the two directly. The ADL has a list, for example, that many companies that are competitors in different markets use to inflict financial and/or business consequences on those who are added to the list. It would seem that would count as per se contingent. On the one hand, some on that list are abhorrent. On the other hand, some just disagree with the positions of the ADL and the ADL knows it can turn screws on those that cross their path. That power seems unacceptable, and apparently may be illegal. Should those not convicted of any crime, living freely in society, be prohibited from buying milk at a grocery store because their words or ideas are considered incorrect by some self selected taste makers? If you disagreed with those with the power to make those lists would you feel the same way?
- atmavatar 2y ago
  There's a sharp difference between the other examples you list (aside from perhaps Reddit) and X. When a person posts an antisemitic on X, the people who notice said post do not know with any certainty what ISP was used, so there's nothing to associate the post with a given ISP. Furthermore, even if readers did know what ISP was used, the general assumption (correct or no) is that ISPs don't monitor traffic going through their pipes, so they neither know nor can control what data is sent over the wire, thus absolving them of any responsibility for what someone decides to post on X. Contrast this with X itself. As the host of said message, there's a direct link between the content seen and X. As X already moderates content on its platform, a claim can be made that it bears responsibility for posts that are left up for any significant amount of time. The fact X sells ad space which appears next to the hosted content only reinforces this responsibility. If you prefer to deal with a meatspace analogy: consider a billboard company. Should someone rent space on a billboard in a widely-visible area and paint a giant penis on it, most onlookers would disapprove, and they'd foster a growing discontent with the company the longer it's left up. However, few, if any, would attack the nearby Lowe's or Home Depot for selling paint and paint brushes that could have been used for the picture or go after the city for daring to build and maintain the roads allowing access to the billboard. X is a digital billboard company. They aren't neutral here: they're actively aiding you in getting your message in front of more people with the hope that any engagement your message triggers will increase ad revenue.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    In my opinion, this is just a perspective pushed by very online political activists that want to push this idea that two different companies associating with each other through spending means their brands are jointly responsible for the content of one of them. But they aren’t. They are separate entities. It doesn’t matter to me if a company like Coca-Cola or Apple shows an ad next to some other content I dislike or on a platform I dislike.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      True or not, almost everyone in the marketing profession believes that you don't want your brand associated in any way with toxicity or negativity, so that's going to drive the actions of advertisers. If a platform permits content that advertisers do not accept, they are going to respond predictably, whether or not we think it's fair or right.
brookst 2y ago
Why? It sounds like a huge loss for free speech to me. it seems bizarre that it could be illegal to encourage boycotts based on political opinions. Was the Bud Light boycott also illegal?
- tazu 2y ago
  This isn't about "encouraging boycotts", it's about business competitors colluding to weild their market power for political reasons. No one is saying that individual companies shouldn't be able to make their own decisions---it's the collusion. In this case, the collusion was allegedly orchestrated by GARM.
  - alamortsubite 2y ago
    > it's about business competitors colluding to weild their market power for political reasons Did they choose not to advertise on X for political reasons, or because associating their brands with toxic content would damage their profitability?
    - netsharc 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - KennyBlanken 2y ago
        That's exactly what Musk has claimed, and supposedly his reason for buying Twitter. It's also a common refrain from bigots of all types: "saying all non-whites are dishonest lazy violent criminals isn't bigotry, it's a political position!" You used to see this shit on slashdot back in the early aughts and it's just as tiresome today.
  - knowsuchagency 2y ago
    He sued the nonprofit out of existence because they encouraged (not forced) companies not to advertise on his platform as he told them all to go fuck themselves. If that sounds like a free speech win, you might be the kind of genius who should start a car or rocket company.
Zak 2y ago
I have mixed feelings here. I find the advertisers' position in this particular case fairly reasonable. The last time I followed a link to a Twitter post, one of the first comments depicted American politicians bowing before a caricature of a Jew draped in an Israeli flag. If I was running ads, I think I wouldn't want my brand to appear next to that. Musk's response to advertisers saying so was literally to tell them to go fuck themselves. If someone were to say that to me, I probably wouldn't do business with them anymore. On the other hand, there's a trend for social media platforms lately to downrank anything that's not advertiser-friendly whether it's Facebook posts containing profanity or Youtube videos about guns. I don't think tech billionaires suing each other about it is an ideal resolution, but I don't like this trend.
- afsdgiadnion 2y ago
  [flagged]
- drawkward 2y ago
  Welcome to late stage capitalism, where all that matters is profit!
lawn 2y ago
Companies not being allowed to leave a platform that has nosedived in quality is "good for all"? Really?
- jawns 2y ago
  The lawsuit says that companies are free to leave the platform based on their own independent judgments. It argues that antitrust law prohibits the companies from making an agreement with their competitors about whether to do so.

I know X is majority hated these days on here but this sounds like a great victory for all if they win imo

by nuz 2y ago

I know X is majority hated these days on here but this sounds like a great victory for all if they win imo

This seems like possibly a winning strategy for anyone who is simultaneously deplatformed, debarked, etc. as well. It’s hard to disagree that there are pariahs that you’d not want as customers. On the other hand, I’d much rather live a world where the phone company operates phones and sells access to networks, ISPs sell server space, banks deal with financial instruments, and all of them leave their social, political, or moral stances to themselves. I don’t go to my local retailer for a lecture on the social injustice of the month. The idea of a Reddit style world where if you participate in one community, regardless of your behavior, you’ll be banned from another is about as distopian as it gets.

peeters 2y ago
According to the article, the only part illegal about "simultaneously deplatforming" someone would be if the action were coordinated by competitors ("we'll ban John Smith if you do too"). I don't think there would be an argument with the same legal reasoning if platforms independently decided to deplatform someone, or even if they saw another platform deplatform someone and let that influence their decision. The Reddit example might be closer to the type of coordination it targets, but it would be hard to apply anti-monopoly legislation to volunteer Reddit mods.
haswell 2y ago
I don’t think it makes sense to include X or any other social media in the same category as those lower level infrastructure services. I’d describe my feelings about the advertising boycott as very mixed, and think it’s worth maintaining a clear distinction between these categories of service. I’d find it equally dystopian to live in an environment that doesn’t allow companies to take a principled stance against obvious abuse or to stop spending money when a company goes through dramatic changes that fundamentally alter the advertising environment. What I’m most curious about is whether or not the boycotts were truly contingent vs. just centrally organized.
- jonhohle 2y ago
  I wasn’t trying to relate the two directly. The ADL has a list, for example, that many companies that are competitors in different markets use to inflict financial and/or business consequences on those who are added to the list. It would seem that would count as per se contingent. On the one hand, some on that list are abhorrent. On the other hand, some just disagree with the positions of the ADL and the ADL knows it can turn screws on those that cross their path. That power seems unacceptable, and apparently may be illegal. Should those not convicted of any crime, living freely in society, be prohibited from buying milk at a grocery store because their words or ideas are considered incorrect by some self selected taste makers? If you disagreed with those with the power to make those lists would you feel the same way?
atmavatar 2y ago
There's a sharp difference between the other examples you list (aside from perhaps Reddit) and X. When a person posts an antisemitic on X, the people who notice said post do not know with any certainty what ISP was used, so there's nothing to associate the post with a given ISP. Furthermore, even if readers did know what ISP was used, the general assumption (correct or no) is that ISPs don't monitor traffic going through their pipes, so they neither know nor can control what data is sent over the wire, thus absolving them of any responsibility for what someone decides to post on X. Contrast this with X itself. As the host of said message, there's a direct link between the content seen and X. As X already moderates content on its platform, a claim can be made that it bears responsibility for posts that are left up for any significant amount of time. The fact X sells ad space which appears next to the hosted content only reinforces this responsibility. If you prefer to deal with a meatspace analogy: consider a billboard company. Should someone rent space on a billboard in a widely-visible area and paint a giant penis on it, most onlookers would disapprove, and they'd foster a growing discontent with the company the longer it's left up. However, few, if any, would attack the nearby Lowe's or Home Depot for selling paint and paint brushes that could have been used for the picture or go after the city for daring to build and maintain the roads allowing access to the billboard. X is a digital billboard company. They aren't neutral here: they're actively aiding you in getting your message in front of more people with the hope that any engagement your message triggers will increase ad revenue.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  In my opinion, this is just a perspective pushed by very online political activists that want to push this idea that two different companies associating with each other through spending means their brands are jointly responsible for the content of one of them. But they aren’t. They are separate entities. It doesn’t matter to me if a company like Coca-Cola or Apple shows an ad next to some other content I dislike or on a platform I dislike.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    True or not, almost everyone in the marketing profession believes that you don't want your brand associated in any way with toxicity or negativity, so that's going to drive the actions of advertisers. If a platform permits content that advertisers do not accept, they are going to respond predictably, whether or not we think it's fair or right.

brookst 2y ago

Why? It sounds like a huge loss for free speech to me. it seems bizarre that it could be illegal to encourage boycotts based on political opinions. Was the Bud Light boycott also illegal?

tazu 2y ago
This isn't about "encouraging boycotts", it's about business competitors colluding to weild their market power for political reasons. No one is saying that individual companies shouldn't be able to make their own decisions---it's the collusion. In this case, the collusion was allegedly orchestrated by GARM.
- alamortsubite 2y ago
  > it's about business competitors colluding to weild their market power for political reasons Did they choose not to advertise on X for political reasons, or because associating their brands with toxic content would damage their profitability?
  - netsharc 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - KennyBlanken 2y ago
      That's exactly what Musk has claimed, and supposedly his reason for buying Twitter. It's also a common refrain from bigots of all types: "saying all non-whites are dishonest lazy violent criminals isn't bigotry, it's a political position!" You used to see this shit on slashdot back in the early aughts and it's just as tiresome today.
- knowsuchagency 2y ago
  He sued the nonprofit out of existence because they encouraged (not forced) companies not to advertise on his platform as he told them all to go fuck themselves. If that sounds like a free speech win, you might be the kind of genius who should start a car or rocket company.

Zak 2y ago

I have mixed feelings here. I find the advertisers' position in this particular case fairly reasonable. The last time I followed a link to a Twitter post, one of the first comments depicted American politicians bowing before a caricature of a Jew draped in an Israeli flag. If I was running ads, I think I wouldn't want my brand to appear next to that. Musk's response to advertisers saying so was literally to tell them to go fuck themselves. If someone were to say that to me, I probably wouldn't do business with them anymore. On the other hand, there's a trend for social media platforms lately to downrank anything that's not advertiser-friendly whether it's Facebook posts containing profanity or Youtube videos about guns. I don't think tech billionaires suing each other about it is an ideal resolution, but I don't like this trend.

afsdgiadnion 2y ago
[flagged]
drawkward 2y ago
Welcome to late stage capitalism, where all that matters is profit!

lawn 2y ago

Companies not being allowed to leave a platform that has nosedived in quality is "good for all"? Really?

jawns 2y ago
The lawsuit says that companies are free to leave the platform based on their own independent judgments. It argues that antitrust law prohibits the companies from making an agreement with their competitors about whether to do so.