3 ms·

How would a restriction on minor usage of social media impact the "free speech" of tech companies? And don't we recognize limits on the free speech of children

• itishappy 2y ago
  > And don't we recognize limits on the free speech of children in certain settings? We sure do. No "Bong hits 4 Jesus" at school-supervised events, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
  • itishappy 2y ago
    I find this Supreme Court case to have both an entertaining context and a quite relevant precedent: > Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick. I'd appreciate it if any downvoters here wouldn't mind explaining their reasoning to me so that I may have a chance to address their concerns.
• verdverm 2y ago
  From the injunction... NetChoice’s argument is persuasive. As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute the Act implicates social media companies’ First Amendment rights. 87 The speech at issue in this case— the speech social media companies engage in when they make decisions about how to construct and operate their platforms—is protected speech. 88 The Supreme Court has long held that “[a]n entity ‘exercis[ing] editorial discretion in the selection and presentation’ of content is ‘engage[d] in speech activity’” protected by the First Amendment.89 And this July, in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Court affirmed these First Amendment principles “do not go on leave when social media are involved.” 90 Indeed, the Court reasoned that in “making millions of . . . decisions each day” about “what third-party speech to display and how to display it,” social media companies “produce their own distinctive compilations of expression.”91 Regarding the more pressing question—whether the Act facially violates social media companies’ First Amendment rights—the probable answer is “yes.” As explained below,
  • klingoff 2y ago
    I'm not sure why Larry Flint had so many legal fights with a state that believes any kind of business has a first amendment right for interactions with children.
  • Eumenes 2y ago
    imo, algorithms/ranking/recommendation systems aren't "editorial decisions". They are automated and abstractions that should not equal or compare to an individuals free speech. Ya, I know, they're designed by humans. Social media companies need some serious lawfare.
    • mplewis 2y ago
      How do you know that a social media algorithm does not contain editorial decisions specifically added by humans?
    • verdverm 2y ago
      What they really needs is competition through the reduced cost of switching for users. Today, you lose your friends, follows, and history if you wanted to move to another social media app. With Bluesky / ATProto, this is no longer the case. They have also made the algo and moderation pluggable, so you have choice before you feel the need to move. It's actually even better because all the apps store your content in your atproto database, each user has a dedicated sqlite