Reported by:
  • 1 : I don't get out of bed for anything less than third circuit

5th circuit Supreme court rules that Social media platforms cannot censor speech. The floodgates have opened.

https://x.com/AlexBerenson/status/1570866359390830592
79
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Censorship on private property is legal, necessary and good. Follow the rules or get banned. Again.

:#marseycensored::!#marseyjanny:

Any lawcels know if this will this actually have any effect on major social media platforms? Or is it just cope

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The major effects will be having to sit through months of virtue signalling from media companies as they pearl clutch over the internet becoming unsafe.

One thing I don't understand is rethuglicans (and demonrats) talking about removing liability protection from content posted by a website's users. They want to force companies to leave potentially dangerous content on their platforms while at the same time making them liable for that content.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They want to force companies to leave potentially dangerous content on their platforms while at the same time making them liable for that content.

Good. I want them to suffer.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think it is basically :marseyhorseshoe:

Both parties want to be able to financially and legally destroy any tech platform that doesn’t bend to their will which is why we’re seeing both parties starting to go after Section 230 in earnest now.

Will be interesting to see which direction it goes, Big Tech is fairly obviously on the Dems side more so but I still don’t see them liking the possibility of Section 230 revisals even if it comes from Dems.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm sure it's not as clear cut as I'm thinking, but the ruling specifically states that it does not cover speech that is unlawful. If you threaten someone, if you incite violence then you're fair game to get removed.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah but the actual standards used by these platforms would have to match the legal definitions of threats, incitement, etc., none of this "misgendering is stochastic terrorism" as hoc bullshit would be allowed to fly.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah that makes sense that would be stuff not covered by the first amendment anyway, I guess the issue I'm imagining is where they have to make a judgement call on edge cases. They're being incentized to both delete and keep controversial speech and be the arbiter of what is and is not covered as protected speech at risk of lawsuit/charges.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is precisely what I found worrisome after I noooooticed it. Aren’t both sides clamoring to repeal 230?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

230 doesn't serve any meaningful purpose anymore. Small websites are held responsible for any posts made by random dipfricks on their platform, and large websites are able to shape user content into saying whatever they please.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Idk, I'll have to read it and it's like 130 pages. Maybe I'll look at it tonight. Looking like this caused a circuit split with the 11th, so SCOTUS may be more willing to grant cert if it's appealed further up the chain. That's when things would get really interesting, as the court now would probably follow the 5th here. Thomas wrote a concurrence in the Knight v. Trump twitter case, granted a different issue, but he seems very opposed to censorship on these platforms. He's salivating for this to be kicked up to them. link

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Idk I really want social media to be defined as common carrier but I don't see how it happens.

And if it doesn't then these rulings are dumb.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nothing of this is ever happening as long as you don't pay for the services.

There are all sorts of interesting issues to solve, you can't have unmoderated forums of course but an idea I personally find intriguing is when you choose who and how is moderating spam and shit out of your feed, with all sorts of interesting models from crowdfunded to paid jannies, with all sorts of proudly declared biases.

But nothing like that is happening before the fundamental contradiction is resolved. You get electricity in your outlet even if you're a Nazi because you pay for the electricity. If instead of you it's an aggregate of ad companies that pays for hosting your comments, then they get to say what kind of content they want or don't want near their ads, this is how it is, how it should be, and how it will be, anyone who thinks that some sort of a law could be passed to change that might as well argue that we should pass a law forcing water to flow uphill when ordered and so solve our energy problems.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

nobody tell this neighbor about artesia

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm fricking dreaming of the day when social media companies have to choose between letting rightoids call their CEO a BIPOC or being sued because some Canadian :marseytrain2: defamed Trump

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It is still going through the courts. Gotta see if it survives further challenges..

Besides this was just r-slured legal challenge ofc it got struck down.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.