"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.
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.
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.
It’s amazing to me that the “freedom loving Trumpers” hate free markets. But they love tariffs. What a bunch of dumb bastards.
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.