>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress.
What about Paul Nehlen, a political candidate who (before he was permabanned) frequently railed on Twitter against the "Jewish media" and mused about the "JQ", which stands for Jewish Question? Who called Jewish critics "shekels-for-hire" and used the phrase "The goyim know!" as an imitation of their involvement in a supposed conspiracy? Who said he wouldn't mind "leading a million Robert Bowers [the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter] to the promised land"?
Is that something Twitter is within their rights to ban for, in your view? If so, would that change if he were elected?
Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox, it is a set of privately owned servers where people can persist small amounts of data that comply with a set of rules. You break the rules, you get kicked off the private property.
> Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox
Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter - they have monopolised that "short catchy text stream" market. Other services, like Gab, exist - but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives, its hard to say that if you don't like Twitter you can go somewhere else.
For better or worse, Facebook and Twitter consumed blogs, and there are no real alternatives.
That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. Social networks are private companies built for profit. For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business. Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook.
Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film.
If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If they're the former and you allow them to discriminate then what's your argument against other businesses discriminating? Can't see that ending well.
If, however, we accept that they're publishers - which in my view they are, as they edit what can be seen in several ways - then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies.
TV channels refuse advertising based on politics or community standards. That's pretty similar - provide your own content, and rent airtime, but get rejected because of what you say.
That's true but let's take it a step forward - if the TV station published a list of rules and your content did not cross the line but you were denied, would that be okay?
Would retroactive application of rules be fine, or new rules created and then retroactively applied?
Would it be okay if they refused simply because of who you were? Or what you did elsewhere? These kind of questions seem to be more applicable if we're comparing to Twitter et al.
I wasn't ready to give an opinion! I was just stating the circumstances :)
But, if I'm going to answer I think legal issues are grey and it can be tough to accept as a programmer dealing in binary. There aren't many absolute rules and sometimes a rule works well at one scale but not another.
Part of the reason we should avoid monopolies is so people and governments can leave companies alone and those who disagree with their rules can go elsewhere because they have options. But this is in complete opposition to products and platforms that flourish because of network effects. By its very nature, Twitter wants to be the only game in town. I think that changes things and opens them up to scrutiny because we have fewer realistic options.
So as a non-answer, if we had many viable social networks or TV channels to choose from I'd be happy with them arbitrarily deciding who gets to play in their playground for any or no reason (as long as it's only in that one place, and there's no secret cabal or cartel). Protected reasons and classes aside. Keeping in mind, many times rules aren't rules, they're flagged as guidelines and subject to change for subjective reasons.
But I don't think that really reflects what is going on in modern social media networks. They are similar but distinct, each is used for different types of speech, and the key players dominate their niche. Users can choose to some degree what they prefer to receive. Networks also choose for the users via their feed algorithms.
So they are already taking on the role of arbiter and have been for some time. That sounds more like a publisher to me, as you say. They don't change the content of each post - but they do change the collection of content you get presented, just like a magazine editor rejecting articles and putting together this month's issue. Except every single article is tagged opinion.
On top of that I think we are just running up against another "too big to fail" situation. They're our only platform to communicate this way, so we don't like the idea of them suppressing speech, and speech can be inflammatory, inciteful, or libelous. That's not really incompatible with free speech in other areas, and I think once a platform reaches a certain size we should treat it as a public arena. This would be consistent with not allowing them to remove posts for arbitrary reasons, but allow them to do it if they think it falls under one of those categories.
Might be missing your point, but a studio for rent does deny paying customers if it wants. Conference facilities might deny particular events. TV networks deny ads that are otherwise legal.
But I don't think it's needed in the argument. As you say, the interesting distinction is around platform versus publisher and any legal protections you gain from posing as the former.
There's only so far a metaphor can be pushed, unfortunately (or fortunately?), and I completely agree, the real point is the distinction and whether it applies.
The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]:
> Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do.
In other words they'd be liable for what is published on their site whether by them or a third party.
Platform is not a legal term, it's a colloquial distinction from publisher, which in this case refers to either the "interactive computer service" (e.g. Twitter) or the third party (e.g. the tweeter). Interactive computer service isn't as catchy.
> Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter?
My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers.
> My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers.
Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpreting you?
> clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content
I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can.
> it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down
That is technically known as a false dilemma.
- They can remove shadowbanning
- They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user
- They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action, no action for things off of the "platform", no new rules that just happen to affect their political opponents
- They can refrain from reframing content
- They can decide to become a smaller company (maybe more profitable (at last;), focus can help, niches help, size isn't everything)
- They can hire more moderators
- They can make the algorithmic tools they use available to users, if you don't want to read "deplorable" content then why not give you they power to make the choice and others the power to continue to read it?
- They can make the rules clearer, tighter, more accessible.
My Lord, there are so many choices available and they're not all mutually exclusive, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.
> I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can.
Right... Because they have section 230 protection. Forums and newspaper websites are not "counted as publishers" with respect to comments you make on the site exactly the same way twitter isn't "counted as a publisher" for your tweets.
> They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action...
Why is it a false dilemma? You've offered up an arbitrary list of product and business suggestions based on your own opinions about how twitter should be run, but nothing you've said seems to contradict the conclusion that twitter should lose the legal protection that allows them to keep the site open if they moderate the site.
Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet?
> Right... Because they have section 230 protection.
That's a good point. You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that.
> Why is it a false dilemma?
You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more. We must preserve the status quo or we die! is not a compelling argument to anyone with an ounce of imagination.
> arbitrary list
No, they're not "arbitrary", and I'm beginning to lose my patience with you.
> based on your own opinions
This is my account, I write my own opinions using it.
> that allows them to keep the site open
Begging the question. The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary.
> Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet?
I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down, regardless of whether they retained protection, and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line.
> You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that.
If twitter becomes legally responsible for anything posted by the millions of users that publish content to the site then it's obviously impossible for them to keep the site running, the logic is very clear.
> You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more
No, there are only two, either the site has section 230 protection or it doesn't, there is no in-between state.
> We must preserve the status quo or we die!
An impressive strawman for someone with such an obsession for formal fallacy labels.
> The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary.
Your list of business suggestions are just ideas you made up, they have no legal meaning, hence arbitrary. Business decisions like "shadowbanning", "retroactive action", "reframing content" and even explicit partisan bias are 100% legal and Twitter is within their rights to operate their business in such a fashion.
> I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down
Yet in your own words:
> The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list"
So in other words, the site shouldn't be kept open if they don't follow your legally meaningless suggestions.
> and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line.
lol whatever, if you're so intellectually dishonest that you won't admit to the implied conclusions of your own argument then I'm wasting my time anyway.
To be clear what most people pushing this position want is for Twitter to be so afraid of ruinous lawsuits that they are afraid to ban people who the rest of us find deplorable.
No, but what would be wrong with a company being afraid of ruinous lawsuits if those lawsuits had merit?
You or I should be afraid of ruinous lawsuits because even one, one without any merit, can cost us a lot. We do not have the resources of Twitter, we do not have a permanent legal staff, we do not have a pit of money, we do not have wealthy backers, we do not have the ear of powerful people. They can fight a suit as far as it can go and actually create precedent in higher courts that you or I could never afford to reach. They can even face down a government lawsuit.
If lawsuits were spurious they'd soon put a stop to them.
If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour. It would be impossible to run a site with user generated content. This is the absurd conclusion that nobody is willing to rule for. Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. What is the desired end result.
> Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating.
If you're unable to maintain a respectful conversation then perhaps Twitter is a better place for you to spend your time.
> If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour
They could and would be immune if they did not editorialise. That's the whole point.
> What is the desired end result.
I don't have a desired end result because I'm not planning some utopian outcome. Let people be free to express themselves unencumbered and without meddling for overt political outcomes or some form of misplaced paternalism, that's it.
If that's not illuminating enough for you then you have my permission to reply to someone else.
>To be clear what most people pushing this position want is for Twitter to be so afraid of ruinous lawsuits that they are afraid to ban people who the rest of us find deplorable.
and this absolutely IS your position albeit you would say for more nuanced moral reasons.
From my perspective its a win win. On the one hand I get to see deplorables banned from twitter on the other this ought to be great motivation for decentralized tools that are the only thing that can possibly be actually censorship proof.
I fully believe that your Facebook and twitter ought to be running on a $100 box on your desk where nobody can censor it with a click. Trying to fix after the fact the situation of having your ability to communicate politically depend on the courtesy of another is a losing proposition.
Nobody is going to apply the CDA in the way that the president wants especially not before November and the will to protect conservative voices will disintegrate once they have lost the presidency and the senate as well.
If you care about truly open communication donate money to people making decentralized tools instead of waiting for the injustice department to do anything useful.
I agree with you in spirit, but the Fairness Doctrine in the United States was a variation of this, where the FCC required that approximately equal time and attention be paid to all sides of a major issue. Ronald Reagan removed this in the 80s, and helped popularize conservative talk radio. The justification was that the limited bandwidth of television made it in the public interest to regulate its influence. The internet is much higher bandwidth, so the same argument doesn't hold water.
EDIT: What qualified as "equal" and "all sides of a major issue" were up to the discretion of the FCC, so enforcement was fairly ad hoc
The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that the airwaves were a public resource and that anyone using that resource was required to use it responsibly and in the interest of the public.
Right...specifically, a limited public resource. The simple version goes like:
Broadcast spectrum is a limited resource. Said resource is owned by the public but since it is limited, you need a license to make use of it. In order to retain a license, you need to operate for the public's interest, convenience, and necessity.
It's also the basic reasoning behind such things as content restrictions and the system by which you can complain about something that is broadcast. If enough people complain about something you broadcast, it can be argued that you are not serving the public's interest and so be fined or lose your license to broadcast.
It's why cable programming is more restricted by a network's desire to avoid pushback from advertisers or cable carriers due to complaints (rather than anything under the jurisdiction of the FCC). They aren't required to serve the public interest in the same way, but market forces apply some of the same pressures.
In this case, I see social media platforms as being more like cable networks than broadcast networks. You won't see specific government content restrictions on most (legal) content hosted on these services because they don't require a license. However, they still face backlash if they piss off enough customers and/or advertisers.
A great example of why major companies should not regulate people's lives is WeChat in China. Some ethnic minorities are banned from using it, which is almost the same as not having a credit card in the US. You can kind of get around without it, but not really.
Many tech companies are simply utilities now. They should not be allowed to refuse service in the same way as electric companies are not allowed to refuse you service - except in extreme circumstances.
That was indeed the status quo on broadcast television for many years:
> The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
In fairness, this was more of a spoof that was canceled due to customer dissatisfaction and finding it to be in poor taste. It was also on a satellite network so neither subject to any public broadcasting guidelines or other OTA broadcast restrictions.
I could totally imagine a Monty Python sketch depicting Hitler in an absurd/comedic situation being rebroadcast on US public TV without issue. I think the previous comment was referring to a hypothetical pro-Nazi program.
> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech.
We do that, and have since 1976. Any cable provider in a city with more than 3500 residents is required to put up 4 public access channels and studios and allow the public to use them and broadcast on them.
> Social networks are private companies built for profit.
To what extent do current laws provide exclusions for them and their business model? Do we deserve something in return for that?
> Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook.
Precedent exists here as well. Free public speech does not include broadcasting of materials of a prurient interest at any time. This is separate from the "seven dirty words" which are generally excluded outside of the 'watershed' which is typically 10pm to 6am in most cities.
I'm fairly libertarian, so I'm uncomfortable with the question, but there has to be some objective method of determining the extent to which "internet domains" are to be considered "leased from the public" the way we do broadcast licenses.
We've already seen certain websites with particularly vile, but legally protected, points of view have their domains taken away from them. If speech can be so easily marginalized, doesn't the public have some interest in claiming domain over some of these seemingly "private" systems?
Cable TV is required. The KKK ran a show on a NYC public access channel back in the 90’s.
Of course I could go cut the data lines running through the right-of-way on my property. I don’t agree with how these big data companies are censoring, so maybe I will censor them.
Why does there have to be an alternative? They can give speeches, send letters and emails, go on television, post to other social media platforms, yell in a park, release an album, etc. You have the right to freedom of speech, not the right to freedom of mediums of speech.
If this is your opinion, then why not go even further?
If you don't support lowering Walmart's taxes, along with all other grocery stores, then why shouldn't they be allowed to permanently ban you for all places to buy food from, forever?
I’m not sure I follow this line of thought. If all the grocery stores did this, then I agree society would certainly take action: build better, more open grocery stores. surely the same principle applies here, A business like Twitter can choose to block a group of ideologies. If there is enough want in the part of people to propagate those ideologies, they’ll build a better forum and if those ideas are successful, that forum will be. Competitive, capitalistic behavior handles this.
One of these is clearly not like the other, in multiple ways. You're at the very least misrepresenting why these people are being banned.
Tax policy is not anywhere close the tweets at issue which often amount to terroristic threatening. If you started verbally abusing other customers in a grocery store, perhaps even implying you'll murder them, then yes, you'll be banned.
To the rest of your comment, are you seriously comparing tweets to food? You have a fundamental right to food, not to have your opinions transmitted by others.
> You have a fundamental right to food, not to have your opinions transmitted by others
At least in the US, it is the opposite.
There isn't a constitutional amendment protecting your rights regarding food. But there is a constitutional right related to your rights regarding speech.
Many people think that these rights regarding speech are pretty darn important. Possibly even the most important rights that a person can have.
So I would absolutely say that they are comparable, and that people's right regarding transmitting speech are possibly even more important than any other rights out there.
It's a known issue that unrestricted commerce or indeed unrestricted ANYTHING is unacceptable because its trivial to imagine situations wherein an actor or actors can misuse the situation.
We cannot and shouldn't contemplate a solution to any and all possible feasible problems because time is finite and a solution that in theory results in the best outcome for a..z wherein h..z are hypothetical and a..h are actual may actually be a worse solution for a..g
The analogy is ridiculous on its face. It will never be actual. In such a situation we would trivially resolve it by passing a law that food stores can't blacklist groups of people while retaining the right to blacklist individuals for actual misbehavior. This would be somewhat limiting on the freedom of small shopkeepers to say throw out nazis but it would break the back of the "big food for lower taxes" coalition. Since none such exists this solution is as described above worse for the set of problems we actually have to solve a problem that is only hypothetical.
It would be more productive to discuss the ACTUAL issue by addressing it directly instead of trying to reason by analogy. It's not like its a topic people on this site have trouble understanding. Going off into the weeds like this just wasted time.
First off, how would Walmart and every single grocery store know my voting record? Beyond that though, a monopolistic collusion to manipulate voting would likely be investigated as anti-trust actions.
Finally, as far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to ban me for my voting pattern. Within a couple weeks I would open up a new grocery store, marketed as not caring what your political beliefs are. The thing is, in a free market (or pseudo-free market like we have) you only succeed with buy in. Once you alienate your customers, you fail.
> Walmart and every single grocery store know my voting record
Well, they could just look up your social media accounts to see if you've made any comments they don't like.
Sure, that would catch everyone, but it would certainly find some, and cause a chilling effect.
> anti-trust actions.
Ahh, no it wouldn't though! Anti trust is about competition. It would not be a violation to collude for non price related non competition reasons.
> I would open up a new grocery store
Even if you happen to be a multi millionaire capable of doing so, most people aren't capable of doing this. Many people might also starve before you get around to doing this.
Also, there are many towns where such competition is not really possible, because there are only a few stores in the area.
> you fail.
You are misunderstanding how long it can take for the market to react. Market power is real, and established entities cannot be overthrown overnight.
I believe they've done it twice now: once for the Daily Stormer [0], once for 8chan [1]. I'm fairly impressed that they host criticism of those decisions on their own website [2].
you can still make a blog! if everyone is technically able to access your content but no one wants to (for reasons other than fearing govt. intervention), that is a very different problem than a freedom of speech problem.
Metcalfe's Law [0] dictates that the value of a network service scales exponentially with its number of nodes. This tilts the table in favor of winner-take-all ecosystems; moreover, in terms of both political soft power and cultural influence, this often creates a pressure for users to participate, not quite under duress, but let's say unenthusiastically, lest they be left out of the conversation.
There isn't an alternative to twitter that will get you as many views as quickly. Are your rights decreased if fewer people hear you because they aren't interested in your message enough to come to www.mydomain.com
> but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives, its hard to say that if you don't like Twitter you can go somewhere else
But Cloudflare isn't a monopoly.
Botnet operators have no trouble finding crime-friendly DDoS protected hosting, the only reason the Nazis struggle with this is lack of experience.
It's shortsighted how beholden some people think the world is to Twitter and other social media platforms that happen to be in vogue at the moment.
Changing fads tend to drift the masses to a new platform for communication every decade or two. Personally I barely use Twitter or Facebook. I much prefer forums like this one or StackOverflow, which do a better job of encouraging quality contributions.
Trump or the White House could conceivably come out with their own app as an alternative means to directly reach followers and avoid censorship. If the people who want to hear him aren't engaged enough to tap a few buttons to install it, I have trouble mustering much sympathy.
I'm an avid supporter of free speech, but I think people who place their faith in a small number of private companies to provide that are naive.
Ideally all the speech, including every kind of speech you find disgusing, should be left as is, without censorship.
As long as it's not anonymous, you can see who is who (even under screen names), and value other speech and actions of these people accordingly. For instance, it would be easy to let anyone know that Paul Nehlen is a racist, by pointing at these posts
As a service owner, you could collapse and mark certain posts so that content offensive for most people won't jump in their eyes. Twitter does this.
Unfortunately, this is not always possible. First, there are legal limitations (hate speech, libel, etc). Second, the public outrage: people actively want to destroy things they find offensive and wrong, and put pressure on the service's owners. This includes its employees and shareholders.
Most people only tolerate free speech as long as it fits the confines of the Overton window. You have to have balls of steel and really good sources of money to explicitly and publicly tolerate anything beyond. Common carrier protections help here, too.
Well, there's a conversation about what "free speech" means that's very different from the conversation about what the First Amendment is. When the Constitution was ratified, they were somewhat synonymous, in that there was a public square that everyone walked past and you could stand there and you certainly could spout your "Jewish Question" logorrhea without government suppression.
Now, the "commons" is controlled largely by private corporations, so while the government couldn't legally say "You cannot utter this speech in Times Square, go utter it in an abandoned piece of farmland in Kansas," private companies can boot you from their platform until you're basically required to set up the entire infrastructure of an ISP to have any access to the Internet, and zero access to the public conversation.
> What about Paul Nehlen, a political candidate...
If that despicable moron somehow got elected, I think there would be a public interest in keeping his statements available to the public. If for no other reason than to maintain the public record of him making those statements as an elected official.
If President Trump told a journalist “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” and the journalist reported it, should social media censor that journalist? Of course not. Well in this case we don’t need the journalist because we can just see it ourselves. Social media can be, among many other things, a window into thoughts that public figures would not otherwise share without a significant filter in place. If elected officials actually want to live their private mental lives in that particular fishbowl, I sure as hell want to be able to keep an eye on them.
> Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox
Under California law there is an affirmative right to free speech even inside private shopping malls. So if your social media company is subject to California civil rights laws, the “private property” argument doesn’t hold up.
held that parties could collect signatures for their political activity on mall property due to a provision in the CA state constitution or more generally that a state constitution could offer more protections than federal law or the US constitution provides.
It found that it didn't represent a taking because passing out leaflets didn't substantially harm the mall.
It found that the political speech was unlikely to be confused with the malls and that they could publicly disclaim such association thus it wasn't compelled speech.
We can logically assume both of the above points are congruent with twitter so we can conclude that if CA or any other state provides a similar protection it ought to be applicable. What it notably did NOT say is that such speech on someone else's property was generally federally protected nor if I understand did it disclaim it.
The next question is does CA law make banning people from your social platform an illegal infringement of citizens rights. So lets follow the same case back to CA.
"The Agricultural Labor Relations Board opinion further observes that the power to regulate property is not static; rather it is capable of expansion to meet new conditions of modern life. Property rights must be "'redefined in response to a swelling demand that ownership be [23 Cal. 3d 907] responsible and responsive to the needs of the social whole. Property rights cannot be used as a shibboleth to cloak conduct which adversely affects the health, the safety, the morals, or the welfare of others.'"
In context it is talking about the worthiness of restricting the property rights of owners by forcing them to allow speech on their property.
In fact it calls out the fact that the increase in importance of places like malls makes the cause of allowing free speech there more worthy which is in line with the rise of importance of social media.
Seems pretty clear that there isn't much daylight between allowing people to petition people for an offensive cause in a mall vs on twitter at least in California but while I reluctantly agree with you I have a few concerns.
I'm concerned that in the short term our Orange dictator will end democracy as we know it and would prefer the matter of free speech to be litigated after we have averted the immediate threat and had the opportunity to decrease the power of the executive to decrease the chance of a similar situation. Given the time required for any court decision this seems inevitable.
The court it seems would have found it an infringement on the property owners rights if the activity made say commercial activity at the property impossible. What kind of activity on a platform would be regarded as a taking? Electronic properties are a lot different from physical ones in this regard.
- Is speech from a bot protected? Is it still protected if it pretends to be a bunch of fake people?
- Is using someone else's platform to distribute ads protected? Does it matter if they are political ads?
- Is Slander protected speech? Do we get to remove obvious to us slander or does it require a court to decide?
- Is direct incitement to illegal activity allowed?
- What about indirect incitement? Can I run ads for the purple haters club which aren't themselves directly offensive themselves but promote a group that everyone knows is all about promoting the murder of purple people?
It seems like disclaimers on posts are the safest legal choice as they represent the owners own free speech rights. From the Supreme Court opinion
"appellants are free to publicly dissociate themselves from the views of the speakers"
It seems logical that other limits to your free speech on others property will logically be established to protect the integrity of the platform in the future. It would be better if the limits in question could meet one standard under law.
Better than the alternative. Consider the r/nyc subreddit, where criticism of anything Jewish-related, no matter how minor, is usually instantly deleted. Whereas posts referring to black people as thugs and animals are allowed to stand. E.g. Google "site:reddit.com/r/nyc thugs"
Yeah criticism of Hasidic jews is usually allowed to stand, because (as a generalization) non-Hasidic jews don't like Hasidic jews and see everything they do as an embarrassment. Maybe Unorthodox will change the perception somewhat, since it humanizes them even though it portrays them negatively.
Why not let a fool be a fool? Why hide what someone is? All that does is create mystique about him.
"Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox, it is a set of privately owned servers where people can persist small amounts of data that comply with a set of rules. "
Certainly that is how it started.
But the de facto power of social media's censorship and dominance in discourse will eventually bring government to regulate social media so as to preserve free speech.
During the rise of Hitler somebody should have done something. I think putting a disclaimer on someones speech is a pretty tame and justifiable answer to doing something.
I'm not saying the decision of which political candidates to censor should be cut and dry. Just that the decision of which elected officials to censor should be.
He wasn't elected because he had disagreeable opinions. If someone you disagree with is elected, then clearly their opinions are mainstream, if not agreeable.
What about Paul Nehlen, a political candidate who (before he was permabanned) frequently railed on Twitter against the "Jewish media" and mused about the "JQ", which stands for Jewish Question? Who called Jewish critics "shekels-for-hire" and used the phrase "The goyim know!" as an imitation of their involvement in a supposed conspiracy? Who said he wouldn't mind "leading a million Robert Bowers [the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter] to the promised land"?
Is that something Twitter is within their rights to ban for, in your view? If so, would that change if he were elected?
Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox, it is a set of privately owned servers where people can persist small amounts of data that comply with a set of rules. You break the rules, you get kicked off the private property.