4 ms·

A blog is speech, but I wouldn't say that deciding to operate a social media site is speech. That said, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose this law.

• dragonwriter 1y ago
  A social media site is speech (and/or press, but they are grouped together in the first amendment because they are lenses on the same fundamental right not crisply distinguishable ones); now, its well recognized that commercial speech is still subject to some regulations as commerce, but it is not something separate from speech.
  • TGower 1y ago
    I would disagree, for example section 230 reads "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The content of the site is obviously speech/press, but the decision to operate the site doesn't seem like it is. Very possible I'm mistaken and there is case law to the contrary though, it's a nuanced argument either way
    • dragonwriter 1y ago
      Not sure why you cite Section 230 as if it had anything to say about what is Constitutionally speech; other than inverting the relation between the Constitution and statute law, that is a pretty big misunderstanding of what Section 230 is (and the broader Communication Decency Act in which it was contained was) about.
      • TGower 1y ago
        > A social media site is speech (and/or press I suppose this is what confused me then, as it seemed obvious that e.g. the Facebook reccomendation algorithm isn't speech, so if a social media site would be considered speech it would be due to the user content. Section 230 doesn't in any way supercede the constitution, but it does clarify which party is doing the speech and thus where the first ammendment would apply.
        • dragonwriter 1y ago
          > Section 230 doesn't in any way supercede the constitution, but it does clarify which party is doing the speech No, it immunizes certain parties from being held automatically liable (without separate proof that they knew of the content, as applies to mere distributors [0]), the "publisher or speaker" standard being the standard for such liability (known as publisher liability.) It doesn't "clarify" (or have any bearing on) where the First Amendment would apply. (In fact, its only relevant when the First Amendment protection doesn't apply, since otherwise there would be no liability to address.) [0] subsequent case law has also held that Section 230 has the effect of also insulating the parties it covers against distributor liability where that would otherwise apply, as well, but the language of the law was deliberately targeted at the basis for publisher liability.
          • TGower 1y ago
            So they are not the speaker for the purposes of liability, but they are the speaker for the purposes of first ammendment protections? That doesn't make sense to me, but it certaintly wouldn't be the most confusing law on the books and you seem to be more informed on the topic than me. Do you have any insight on how that dynamic would apply to something like The Pirate Bay? Intuitively on that basis, users uploading content would be liable, but taking down the site would be a violation of the operator's first ammendment rights.
            • dragonwriter 1y ago
              > So they are not the speaker for the purposes of liability, but they are the speaker for the purposes of first ammendment protections? People who are not “the speaker or publisher” for liability purposes have Constitutional first amendment free speech rights in their decision to interact with content, this includes distributors, consumers, people who otherwise have all the characteristics of a “speaker of publisher” but are statutorily relieved of liability as one so as to enable them to make certain editorial decisions over use generated content without instantly becoming fully liable for every bit of that content, etc., yeah. And arguing the alternative is you making the exact inversion of statute and Constitution I predicted and which you denied, that is, thinking Section 230 could remove First Amendment coverage from something it would have covered without that enactment.
• kragen 1y ago
  Speech isn't just shouting into the void; it's dialogue back and forth between two or more different people. Social media sites such as Hacker News and the WELL facilitate this, even when they aren't businesses, in much the same way as a dinner party or a church picnic does.
  • TGower 1y ago
    Sure, speech happens on and is facilitated by social media sites, but that doesn't imply that operating a social media site is a form of speech any more than operating a notebook factory is.
    • kragen 1y ago
      If having a dinner party at your house gets you busted by the police, you are not living in a liberal society. If notebook factories are under tight surveillance to ensure that their notebooks are serialized and tracked because bad people might use them to plot crimes, you are not living in a liberal society.
      • TGower 1y ago
        I agree, there are better grounds to oppose such measures than "this violates the notebook factory owner's freedom of speech" though.
        • kragen 1y ago
          No, it violates the potential notebook buyers' freedom of speech. The factory owner's freedoms don't come into it.
          • TGower 1y ago
            Sounds like we are in agreement then, the root of this was >A blog is speech, but I wouldn't say that deciding to operate a social media site is speech.