Supreme Court to decide if states can control fate of social media

On Monday the Supreme Court will begin to hear oral arguments in a case to determine who can control propaganda on the internet and social media.

Supreme Court to decide if states can control fate of social media

when a user called one of the franchise’s characters a “soy boy” — a pejorative term insulting a person’s masculinity — in 2022, the discussion board’s volunteer moderators kicked him out.

But the user shot back, filing a lawsuit against Reddit under a landmark Texas law prohibiting social media companies from removing posts or accounts based on a viewpoint

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear oral arguments to determine the constitutionality of that Texas law along with a related Florida law, which prohibits platforms from suspending the accounts of political candidates or media publications.

The cases will determine whether state governments or tech companies have the power to set the rules for what posts can appear on popular social networks.

link

So pick your poison; who do you trust more to control the propaganda on social media; Big tech companies or state governments?

Extrapolating out our impending doom as authoritarianism threatens to take control of our country from all sides; this court case will help to lay the foundation as to who will be the winners and who will be the losers. Will our future ruler be a Joe Biden type or Elon Musk type? Will we live in a Corpocracy or a kleptocracy?

a reply to: Dandandat3

The obvious answer is none of the above.

I hope more and more folk recognize that there is a lot not being allowed to be said that are in the first amendment reality to say. Or in any nations policy to say.

a reply to: Dandandat3

All sorts of industries are required to work within the constraints of state laws. Not sure why this should be different.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Dandandat3

The obvious answer is none of the above.

Ditto that one

With that said I wonder if other states will starting doing what Utah is doing with it's Sovereignty Act to take control of federal overreach

a reply to: tarantulabite1


You used Utah as an example of internet freedom......
Lol to that

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: tarantulabite1


You used Utah as an example of internet freedom......
Lol to that

It was more of a point about Control

a reply to: tarantulabite1


Ahhh got ya.
My bad

It's too late, Pandora's box is open. It's about time the authorities jump on these people that make a big deal (including changing laws for them) about what somebody said or wrote that hurt their delicate nature, hurt their feelz. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.

After either the state or federal government takes control, where will it end? Will it be used for moderation of social media posts or will it become an all-around censoring tool? Will they come after genuine news articles with relevant sources or stories with political overtones, even if they are fictional?

Would I, or any web publisher for that matter, have to supply a disclaimer with every article warning the reader of any possible disinformation or fake news or that it is fictional and for entertainment purposes even if it isn't? I think I better make a disclaimer notice to use, one that is like at the end of a movie. "This story and all the characters portrayed are fictional and any similarity to any current situation or any persons living or dead are entirely coincidental."

Even if the laws that come from this are strictly for social media posts, can I ever safely express my opinions anymore? What will be the penalties if I break any new laws that come from this decision?

I don't necessarily like the fact that a private company that owns a social media platform can censor anything it wants to, but it is their network and they make the rules you signed up for. On the other hand, I absolutely hate and despise government control like they are suggesting, it is a steep slippery slope that will destroy the 1st in no time at all.

ETA: Right now there are free speech platforms available, but they aren't nearly as popular as the ones most people use. You can express yourself without fear of censorship on some forums, even use hate speech if that's what you're into. Look around and you will find your platform until some government laws make it illegal to discuss certain topics or use certain speech.

originally posted by: crayzeed
It's too late, Pandora's box is open. It's about time the authorities jump on these people that make a big deal (including changing laws for them) about what somebody said or wrote that hurt their delicate nature, hurt their feelz. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.

But some words do harm people's reputations and/or their business reputations that's why we have slander laws, which IMO should apply in all instances being offline and online.

Other types of words harm the youngest of us online where they don't have the experience of life or help from family and friends to tackle/understand the hate and bullying or perhaps extortion and come out of it unscathed.

As for propaganda, that's somewhat more difficult to control as giving audience-targeted social media is what are some sites' bread-and-butter, so to speak.

It will be interesting to see how they get around the free speech-freedom of the press thingie.

I think ultimately, because every app is proprietary and requires the user to sign the terms and conditions, it's not a question of judiciary but a question of free market. Performance is determined by supply and demand, not by the government stepping in every other week and making decisions about who is victimized and who is doing the victimizing. This is why we now have bitchute and rumble and truthsocial and gettr. Instead of taking venues like Twitter by the hand and forcing them to be more accommodating, you compete with them as all entrepreneurs have done for centuries. It's the nature of the business.

a reply to: quintessentone
No! You're giving in too much. Yes there is such a thing as slander and there are laws that govern that. As for children, a simple question for you "would you take your 12 year old child to a lap dancing club or a adult rated horror film"? No you wouldn't because the affect it would have on them. The internet has an awful lot of sites that would be hundreds of times worse than those, so why are you allowing children free open access? It's the same choice.