There's No Free Speech In Social Media

a reply to: Degradation33

Missouri v Biden

Read this and educate yourself.

a reply to: Degradation33

Yes. Very true. Social media is owned by some-body...and it's their rules.

Conversely...you can't go into a theatre and yell "Fire!"...or "Gun!"...just because of "freedom of speech".

a reply to: Degradation33

Internet bill of rights was being touted around 5 years ago.
It must've been a terrible idea.


ibor

Trump’s new executive order, which seeks to remove legal protections from social media companies to encourage political neutrality, has been a long time coming. Although Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey has emphatically denied that content on the platform is moderated according to the politics of its users, the evidence suggests otherwise.

A detailed analysis by Richard Hanania for Quillette proves that politically active individuals are far more likely to be suspended or censored if they are right-leaning. His research shows that since May 2015 there has been a dramatic increase in suspensions of public figures on Twitter, in many cases clearly for ideological reasons.

originally posted by: darkbake
This is a very smart thread! It gets the facts right. I am a proponent for free speech, but we need to look at the facts. One thing I might point out is that the government has been secretly telling tech companies what to censor, what does the law say about this?

As far as I know, nothing.
The first amendment might need to be updated to also say the government can't bribe, threaten, or otherwise coerce the media into censoring free speech.
Although that still wouldn't cover Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others taking bribes from other governments or entities to cover up discussion of certain topics.

Almost like we need a platform where freedom of speech is valued, and the people running it refuse to censor anyone for any reason.
The way the internet used to be.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Degradation33

Yes. Very true. Social media is owned by some-body...and it's their rules.

Conversely...you can't go into a theatre and yell "Fire!"...or "Gun!"...just because of "freedom of speech".

global companies are not beholden to just American legal concepts and much of the digital evolution has to be tested through a myriad of courts, I'm unsure it'll do well for those who want to eradicate freedom of expression from the world.. plenty of cases currently being tested through England's courts and the speech/thoughts/expressions are found to be protected under the law, as such private companies risk losing vast sums/reputational damage if they start discriminating against protected beliefs.

as for shouting fire yes you can, if you believe there is one its your obligation to do something about it, thus in common law there are excuses and factor alongside intent, both allow that course of action, in this vein English law still retains the use of lawful excuse, in us jurisprudence it'll just be an excuse but as with the wider topic only courts can test the validity of such things.

a reply to: lordcomac

what is happening is the test cases are progressing through the courts, as this is where our legal rights and concepts will be tested and validated, the most recent in my country has been critism of CRT on social media which now sits alongside gender critical ideas as a protected belief.. only something like advocating Nazism would fail the legal tests all else will sit as expressions of protected beliefs..

the us is far more in favour of free expression than my country so it feels a given the us courts will consolidate it all.. I honestly can't see the legal decisions going any other way..

a reply to: nickyw

global companies are not beholden to just American legal concepts

They have their own concepts of legality, and do you in court with this ICSID beast like they did Honduras.

The claim was brought before the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington DC. Próspera asked for US$10.8 billion in compensation, an astronomical sum given that it is equal to almost two-thirds of the 2022 Honduran national budget.

In retaliation, Honduras has now threatened to withdraw from the ICSID system entirely. And the claim has also galvanized progressive U.S. politicians. “Large corporations have weaponized, and continue to weaponize, this faulty and undemocratic dispute settlement regime to benefit their own interests at the expense of workers, consumers, and small businesses globally,” a group of 32 members of the U.S. Congress wrote in an open letter to President Joe Biden.

Indeed, a 2020 review of 74 case studies of investor protection agreements by Josef Brada, Zdenek Drabek and Ichiro Iwasaki shows that the “effect of international investment agreements is so small as to be considered zero.”

Próspera Demands Honduras Pay $11 Billion for Outlawing Privately Run City

a reply to: lordcomac

Although that still wouldn't cover Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others taking bribes from other governments or entities to cover up discussion of certain topics.

I think if you dive into any of those companies listed, you will find they are gov run and created.
Not just a garage book store success, or genius nerd dorm boy.
If they aren't created by, they might as well be once public, with the insider trading, legalized rigging jackals.

a reply to: nickyw

Agree with you here. In difference to the 2 countries, and perhaps prevalent to each anyway....tech world has provided so much freedom...we believe we have every right to use these things we bought and "I'm gonna do n say what I want. I paid"...,or similar.

Not so. No shoes no shirt no service. My store. My rules. Get out. Social media? Same.

It is a dismal thought my friend, that real freedom is actually quite restrictive if one thinks it through. We pay, concede and agree to a lot for our "devices".
🫡✌️

a reply to: watchitburn

Okay... Educated... Good to know, but we are still left with this, please don't skip over this point:

Even still, it doesn't matter.

Why would Meta having their rights violated to censor for the left be made right by having no rights to affiliation at all?

Yeah they might have had their rights violated if Biden overstepped, but forcing no political affiliation IS ALSO A VIOLATION..

That's where I am confused..

We strip them of their rights altogether because they had them violated to censor republicans?

"The court order to protect your rights violated by Biden is we strip you of your constitutional rights to affiliation altogether!"

That's a conundrum..

So, is it using Meta's rights to go after Biden?

Not really about Meta, but Biden persuading Meta to cancel Republicans over election and covid views?

What I want to know, do you agree it's okay to forcibly strip Meta of its constitutional rights in the name of protecting its user base from having their opinions censored by a pushed consensus?

Rights to free speech and political affiliation, First ammendment protection to censor how they please, regardless of who is pressuring them to do it, does that no longer mean anything?

Is it the People's Meta all of a sudden?

It doesn't matter what Biden did to Meta or how he pressured other social media companies, they still have a first amendment protection to be bias, regardless of who is strongly pressuring them to do so.

originally posted by: Degradation33
Sorry. There is no free speech on social media. Any social media. Not constitutionally.

First, when private companies accept Statutory privileges, like being shielded from liability, they lose many 'Rights' they may otherwise have.

Additionally, as the Twitter Files made abundantly clear, the Social Media companies were in dorect collution with multiple government agencies, and were obediently censoring whoever they were told to censor.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. The government was engaging in censorship, while trying to hide it.

You defend it, because they were censoring things you don't want to hear because it directly challenges that precious bubble you're living in.

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: Degradation33
Corporate rights equal individual rights, this is what trickle down economics can do for you! And we all know people with a lot of followers, who will be treated differently, but nobody wants to talk about the relationships of capitalist exploitation.

It's just "free speech" all the time. Big words, as if they'd exist in a vacuum.

Screeb nah, bom dbibble do wa diddie bo twiddle-dee-dum.

There ya go, fixed that for ya...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Okay. Established. They were colluding.. They were cronyist and messed up with multiple governments.

Now, going forward, do you feel the precedent of forcing social media to NOT censor views is a coonsituationally valid precedent to set?

Okay, Meta lost privileges accepting shielding, but what about going forward?

Are we going to set a precedent axing corporate identity so this doesn't happen again and several governments can't collude through email to stifle dissenting opinion on social media.

the internet should be completely uncensored. and since censorship takes time (i.e a 'waste of' time), people that are hurt by words on a screen should have to pay extra for the censorship service

voila, our words on a screen "problem" has been solved

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: nickyw

Agree with you here. In difference to the 2 countries, and perhaps prevalent to each anyway....tech world has provided so much freedom...we believe we have every right to use these things we bought and "I'm gonna do n say what I want. I paid"...,or similar.

Not so. No shoes no shirt no service. My store. My rules. Get out. Social media? Same.

It is a dismal thought my friend, that real freedom is actually quite restrictive if one thinks it through. We pay, concede and agree to a lot for our "devices".
🫡✌️

I'd argue there are more limits to what private companies can do than on what private citizens can do, they might be able to insist on shoes/shirt but not where they are brought from nor the colours, type, size and material which is where they are trying to head.. in that world private companies could insist on women only be allowed to wears stockings suspenders and high heels that how silly that thinking is, it why the bulk of the restrictions sit on the side of the private companies.

we are at the point of courts deciding the limits not the private companies.. but the bulk of the limits will be placed on the private companies and they'll be the ones trapped by case law, as people will only bypass whatever the are told they can say/think. only the daft missed that part of covid, people will always bend, twist, ignore and subvert anything trying to stop them doing or saying what they want.

we are only here because of that attitude, the leveller networks went to extraordinary lengths to ensure freedom of expression, alongside that the esg world is collapsing as is trying to control how the world expresses itself and like the money printing or the covid policies none of it is economically sustainable.. as combinations go the private companies are screwed as no one is going to speak for them. Only the sensible will survive it, trying to imitate the ccp was never going to be a winning move.

as for devices we're still at the roll your own stage of development so they really don't control what you have in your hand or at home, its still wishful they can simply remove privacy to spy on what everyone says/does..

a reply to: Salamandy

Should it be like the Dark Web, then?

originally posted by: Salamandy
the internet should be completely uncensored. and since censorship takes time (i.e a 'waste of' time), people that are hurt by words on a screen should have to pay extra for the censorship service

voila, our words on a screen "problem" has been solved

No thanks.

I'd never be on a discussion site that didn't have moderators.

Even if I don't always agree with them.

a reply to: Salamandy

So are the companies facilitating the free exchange of ideas allowed the privilege of corporate identity and self censorship, or is this reclassifying tech companies as a quasi government entity bound to guarentee rights, not have them.

I will accept the government conspired with everyone to suppress the antivax and election information but is the answer really to set legal precedent against the right to affiliation...

To keep consistency, you strip Meta of their corporate rights,you strip them all. Every religious influenced business, maybe with crosses. If you force Meta to be egalitarian as a business identity, I can force In N Out Burger to print "hail Satan" next to John 3:16 on their cups. They're not allowed affiliation just like Meta.

What precedent is set of you force a private company to espouse politically egalitarian practices?

Honestly, I just want to see what 17th century judge SCOTUS based their out of sync with the majority corrupt opinion on.

Set precedent against the free affiliation of business to placate some asshurt banned antivaxers?

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Degradation33

Yes. Very true. Social media is owned by some-body...and it's their rules.

Conversely...you can't go into a theatre and yell "Fire!"...or "Gun!"...just because of "freedom of speech".

Not sure about 'Guns!', but this isn't really true...

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl

Now, going forward, do you feel the precedent of forcing social media to NOT censor views is a coonsituationally valid precedent to set?

If the company is accepting statutory liability protections? Yes. Absolutely.

Okay, Meta lost privileges accepting shielding, but what about going forward?

Do they still enjoy said protections? Then yes. Absolutely.

Are we going to set a precedent axing corporate identity so this doesn't happen again and several governments can't collude through email to stifle dissenting opinion on social media.

Not sure what you mean by 'axing corporate media'?