"If the editorial choices of a private company were “censorship,” then every newspaper, TV station, and podcaster—indeed, every person in the world—would be engaged in an infinite number of acts of censorship every day, simply because they choose to articulate one message instead of another."
But social media sites are based on user-generated content, not "curated" content. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. produce nothing but a platform, everything on their service is user-generated - which makes them a different animal from a typical news outlet, magazine, pamphlet, etc. where the publisher acts as an editor and has to fit internally generated content into a physically limited form like a newspaper, magazine, or 30 minute news segment. I don't think that means that they're required to publish everything a user wants them to, but the heart of the matter is if those companies are making the decisions themselves or under direct or indirect pressure from government agencies/officials.
The real questions regarding social media censorship have to do with government agencies getting deeply involved in the content moderation process, in effect coercing those companies to censor for them through both direct and indirect pressure.
“User generated” that’s more than a bit disingenuous. As this “suggestions” is some random non-agenda driven piece of the platform? Your pseudo intellectual drivel is a bit off putting
Actually, he's providing smart pushback, as the fight over Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act suggests. In that context, platforms wanted to differentiate themselves from editorial operations—in this one, the one that the current article is about, they want to be grouped with them. To me the user-generated/curated content distinction doesn't hold up when the matter has to do with the prerogatives of private companies—both have vast curational license to host what they want on their sites. But it's still a point worth reflecting on. Please don't needlessly insult people in our comments space.
No one, regardless of their professed ideology or any other ancillary gibberish about any other subject including political beliefs has a right to violate the constitution of the United States. Justifiably so.
If you think someone is providing a platform for engagement and exchange has no responsibility for the content of that engagement in exchange, you shouldn’t be participating in a discussion on the matter.
No that’s just words solid bovine fecal matter. The duty of our federal government at a basic level is to “promote the general welfare” nothing you are gibbering about is connected to that. Even coincidentally.
Government coercion is government coercion regardless of how it is implemented. The private/public distinction still applies. You're vigorously agreeing with the criticism of Alito.
Nice article. Two questions: (1) Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with these principles? Did local restaurants and hotels in the South really have monopolistic power? (2) As a practical matter, can entrepreneurs overcome the consequences of “private” censorship by starting new social media companies? Twitter and others blocked the New York Post’s investigative reporting about the Hunter Biden laptop right before the 2020 election, and many believe that affected the outcome of the election. Is it true entrepreneurs could have started a new social media company in time to negate that? Even if someone tried, what would prevent the social media companies from stopping that the way they stopped Parler from gaining traction?
They should have to abide by their own terms of service and a demand of absolute verification of the account holders identity would stop and 90% of the fake ass bullshit. Also, let’s prosecute sedition, incitement and libel.
They are illegal, after all.
Then this conversation would be mute.
You bring up the correct issues that you bring the solutions. Call us to the street. Remove this shit. Mass civil disobedience. General strike occupy everything.
I think that the comparison between website and newspapers tends to ignore the issue of user-generated content (UGC): unlike newspapers social media site do not have to worry about actionable content , unless they participatedin creating or producing it, because of the general immunity provided by section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act of 1996.
The line of argument of judge Alito is still difficult to follow.
"If the editorial choices of a private company were “censorship,” then every newspaper, TV station, and podcaster—indeed, every person in the world—would be engaged in an infinite number of acts of censorship every day, simply because they choose to articulate one message instead of another."
But social media sites are based on user-generated content, not "curated" content. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. produce nothing but a platform, everything on their service is user-generated - which makes them a different animal from a typical news outlet, magazine, pamphlet, etc. where the publisher acts as an editor and has to fit internally generated content into a physically limited form like a newspaper, magazine, or 30 minute news segment. I don't think that means that they're required to publish everything a user wants them to, but the heart of the matter is if those companies are making the decisions themselves or under direct or indirect pressure from government agencies/officials.
The real questions regarding social media censorship have to do with government agencies getting deeply involved in the content moderation process, in effect coercing those companies to censor for them through both direct and indirect pressure.
“User generated” that’s more than a bit disingenuous. As this “suggestions” is some random non-agenda driven piece of the platform? Your pseudo intellectual drivel is a bit off putting
Actually, he's providing smart pushback, as the fight over Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act suggests. In that context, platforms wanted to differentiate themselves from editorial operations—in this one, the one that the current article is about, they want to be grouped with them. To me the user-generated/curated content distinction doesn't hold up when the matter has to do with the prerogatives of private companies—both have vast curational license to host what they want on their sites. But it's still a point worth reflecting on. Please don't needlessly insult people in our comments space.
No one here is addressing the real issue which is, sedition, incitement nor libel is within the parameters of the first amendment.
No one, regardless of their professed ideology or any other ancillary gibberish about any other subject including political beliefs has a right to violate the constitution of the United States. Justifiably so.
Go play in traffic
No botboi. Jesus fucking Christ. That’s the dumbest shit I’ve seen in a minute. And I spent a couple hours on Quora last week.
Words have definitions.
Fuck you
I stand by my statement. Calling someone’s bullshit does not make me the asshole, Bruh
Would you translate that from nebulous gibberish to English containing relativity to topic? Please….
If you think someone is providing a platform for engagement and exchange has no responsibility for the content of that engagement in exchange, you shouldn’t be participating in a discussion on the matter.
That’s why libertarianism is a ridiculous and blatantly stupid political ideology. Literally an untenable position.
No that’s just words solid bovine fecal matter. The duty of our federal government at a basic level is to “promote the general welfare” nothing you are gibbering about is connected to that. Even coincidentally.
Go away boy, your bother me
Government coercion is government coercion regardless of how it is implemented. The private/public distinction still applies. You're vigorously agreeing with the criticism of Alito.
Nice article. Two questions: (1) Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with these principles? Did local restaurants and hotels in the South really have monopolistic power? (2) As a practical matter, can entrepreneurs overcome the consequences of “private” censorship by starting new social media companies? Twitter and others blocked the New York Post’s investigative reporting about the Hunter Biden laptop right before the 2020 election, and many believe that affected the outcome of the election. Is it true entrepreneurs could have started a new social media company in time to negate that? Even if someone tried, what would prevent the social media companies from stopping that the way they stopped Parler from gaining traction?
They should have to abide by their own terms of service and a demand of absolute verification of the account holders identity would stop and 90% of the fake ass bullshit. Also, let’s prosecute sedition, incitement and libel.
They are illegal, after all.
Then this conversation would be mute.
You bring up the correct issues that you bring the solutions. Call us to the street. Remove this shit. Mass civil disobedience. General strike occupy everything.
Well, I can’t help your lack of reading comprehension and cognitive function.
I know their definitions.
The fuck does that have to do with the parameters of the first amendment? You get one chance.
It’s amazing to me that the “freedom loving Trumpers” hate free markets. But they love tariffs. What a bunch of dumb bastards.
Neither party allows free markets. Other than the vegetables in the park on Saturday morning
But republicans claim that they are the freedom caucus and democrats are the socialists
I think that the comparison between website and newspapers tends to ignore the issue of user-generated content (UGC): unlike newspapers social media site do not have to worry about actionable content , unless they participatedin creating or producing it, because of the general immunity provided by section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act of 1996.
The line of argument of judge Alito is still difficult to follow.
True....
IF
your last name is Rufedans. Or anyone else who sees through the wrong end of the glass. Darkly.
Are you saying that the distinction between govt & private citizens is false, or somehow a dark interpretation?