[1A] The Free Speech Thread

[T.Lex]

Kinda like NBC/CBS/ABC prevented Fox from achieving anything?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Kinda like NBC/CBS/ABC prevented Fox from achieving anything?

Which happened how long ago? Not saying it's totally impossible, but at this stage of the game, it's pretty close. And Fox was already a big company before it got into the news/television business. And now NBC is owned by Comcast. The big keep getting bigger and swallowing even the other "big fish". What do you suppose would happen to a start up company in this environment?

 

[T.Lex]

Which happened how long ago? Not saying it's totally impossible, but at this stage of the game, it's pretty close. And Fox was already a big company before it got into the news/television business.

I remember that same argument being made, though, that the Big 3 networks choked off any competitors. Fox, while a big company, didn't mind doing it.

So why doesn't Fox start a social media platform for conservatives? The tech is easy enough.

After that EO, they sure as hell won't.

Heck, that EO could kill INGO.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I remember that same argument being made, though, that the Big 3 networks choked off any competitors. Fox, while a big company, didn't mind doing it.

So why doesn't Fox start a social media platform for conservatives? The tech is easy enough.

After that EO, they sure as hell won't.

Heck, that EO could kill INGO.

Well, Fox's status as a conservative outlet has been on the decline. As for INGO, I don't think that's likely. The EO isn't stating that a platform can't have rules about content. It's saying that the rules need to be applied fairly. INGO, while predominantly conservative in nature, is that way because of who uses it, not because of the way it's run. Churchmouse will ban someone for breaking the rules no matter what their political bent is. The same cannot be said for Twitter or Facebook. GPIA7R brought up Kathy Griffin earlier. She has said some pretty outrageous things, enough so that the Secret Service had a chat with her as I understand it. Nary a peep out of Twitter about it though. If a conservative had held up the bloody head of Hillary or Bernie, how long do you think they'd allow that to fly? That's what the EO is about IMHO.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This sounds good in theory, but who would be big enough to do this? It's like saying, "Don't like Microsoft or Apple? You're free to start your own tech company." Or maybe, "Don't like Comcast? You're free to start your own cable company." In the real world, it's not that simple at this point. The big boys (including Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) came along and got in on the ground floor so to speak. Now they've gotten so big as to effectively create barriers to entry into that market.

Services like these come and go. They will all meet their inevitable death.

As for who could do it... Elon Musk could easily create a Twitter competitor, I would think. I think even he would be interested in doing it if things got too ****.

 

[BugI02]

So, some "conservatives" defended Trump's use of his executive power to ban bumpstocks and are now defending the use of executive power to interfere in private business.

If this is an important policy issue, let the legislative branch handle it. That's the branch that passed the law in the first place. Let's have the policy discussion on amending it.

Or let an authoritarian who campaigned on the notion that the 1A might not be very important push to further limit it.

The question isn't really whether the balance could be better struck [ that's open for debate. For me, the issue is that this isn't the way to do it. This further centralization of power in the executive branch.

Have you considered the possibility that Trump knows the best way to get congress to move off of zero on an issue is to attempt to do something about it himself? If they don't want to do the heavy lifting on an issue then he either gets what he wants or battles it out in the courts and often gets most of what he wants

Too 4D for you?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Services like these come and go. They will all meet their inevitable death.

As for who could do it... Elon Musk could easily create a Twitter competitor, I would think. I think even he would be interested in doing it if things got too ****.

Musk has the money. Not sure what his version of Twitter would look like. The real challenge would be to find someone that not only had the wherewithal to do it, but someone that would not let their own political bias (whether conservative or liberal) creep into the way it's run. Might be a Diogenes-like task to find that person.

 

[jamil]

In the free market context, it really doesn't. If a market is being underserved, a competitor will come along. Let the market pick the winners and losers.

People make their own decisions.

And, this opens up some GREAT tools for future Democratic Socialist elected presidents.

ETA:
Let's not forget his campaign included vague promises about changing the 1A. Here's his follow-through.

In a fairy tale utopia sure. Some business, oh, I dunno, called "unicornia" will open up and replace facebook. Gab tried. All they did was end up taking all the white nationalists who'd been ****canned from Twitter, and now that place might as well be stormfront. And not that Gab is all racists. There were a lot of people who wanted to make it a viable alternative to twitter. I gave it a shot. But ***damn racists everywhere n-word this and n-word that and I'm just out.

There is such a thing as too big to lose. So don't give me that, oh, if the market is underserved...bull****. And to be frank I'm surprised you're giving the laissez faire sales pitch. I support the free market but it's a delusion to believe the market by itself can regulate itself. I do not favor democrat style uber-regulation. But minimal regulation to ensure the market is not manipulated by the biggest players. And that's part of what the big social media companies are doing. Using their platform to mete out information that will favor candidates who are favorable to them.

People do make their own decisions, and also people are highly hackable. It's why social engineering works. And it's why the social media algorithms work.

And then there's the slippery slope argument, that this would be great tools for the future Democratic Socialist elected presidents. C'mon man. I don't really agree with the way he's going about it, but it looks to me like all he's doing is changing the way the section 230 is implemented concerning liability protections. It also provides a way for people to file complaints with the FTC about political bias,


The order signed Thursday encourages the Federal Communications Commission to rethink the scope of Section 230 and when its liability protections apply. The order also seeks to channel complaints about political bias to the Federal Trade Commission, an agency that the White House has asked to probe whether tech companies’ content-moderation policies are in keeping with their pledges of neutrality. It also creates a council that works with state attorneys to investigate claims of politically motivated censorship.

Now. Maybe YOU think that's a boon for socialists. It's nothing of the sort. I really wanted to see Trump bring back the fairness doctrine and expand it to social media companies that make up a de facto public square.

 

[jamil]

Services like these come and go. They will all meet their inevitable death.

As for who could do it... Elon Musk could easily create a Twitter competitor, I would think. I think even he would be interested in doing it if things got too ****.

That's possible. It depends how well they choose their leadership, and how complacent they become. GE rose to be one of the top companies in the world under Jack Welsh. Then he handed it off to Jeff Imelt, the ***** ass *****, and GE is no longer near the top. So yeah, like any empire, they tend to come and go. Sears would still be around if they remembered that they're in the retail sales business and not the Mall anchor store business.

Google, has all the money. So therefore youtube effectively has all the money. And they have all the power that comes with that. They have the infrastructure and market that no one can really touch. Hopefully Joe Rogan will mark the beginning of the end of YouTube. But maybe it won't. Maybe they'll see the dangers ahead in the path they're taking and try to get back to what they were once, and decide that they're not being socially irresponsible if they don't meddle with politics. I mean. It could happen. But even if it doesn't, they could probably play some hardball with Spotify.

I also think it's foolish to think that, oh well, the market will fix this. Not at this scale really. Because the things that tend to fix these things can't really happen much at this scale. Maybe Elon Musk could create a Twitter competitor. And then guess what? It's the next Gab. Gab had the right idea and I had really high hopes for it. But it's now a shadow service that runs in Twitter's shadow giving home to all the people Twitter has banned mostly from the right. Do you know what happens to the big guy's shadow? What's the name of that other Indiana gun forum that closed down? I can't remember its name. Wonder why I can't remember its name.

I hope you're right, but I doubt you are.

 

[chipbennett]

@chip
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

This is just part of the preamble:


In other words, "They aren't saying what I think they should be saying."

Do you actually use Twitter? Do you know how it works? (I don't know; I know that GPIA7R is on Twitter, but I don't know who else is.)

It literally has nothing to do with Twitter not "saying what I think they should be saying". It has to do with Twitter actively modifying the content of his tweets (by injecting a "fact check" link), and actively editorializing in the presentation of the content of his tweets (by putting an interstitial message above his Tweets, claiming that it violates the Twitter TOS and preventing the content from being interacted with as per normal).

He is not saying anything at all about what Twitter or any Twitter employees tweet from their own accounts. The @Twitter account could reply to Trump's tweets with a "fact check" link. The @Twitter account could quote-retweet Trump's tweets with a "fact check" link. Such actions would not constitute direct censoring or editorializing of Trump's tweets.

In terms of substance:


Just like he told the ATF to ban bumpstocks, he's telling the FCC to do this.

And I don't have an inherent problem with reviewing the section 230 immunity of social media platforms that are acting like publishers instead of platforms.

He's dropping the full weight of the DOJ on the investigation of things. Ever been through a DOJ investigation? It ain't cheap, even if you aren't the target.

Okay. Expense is not a valid inherent argument against the EO here.

In the free market context, it really doesn't. If a market is being underserved, a competitor will come along. Let the market pick the winners and losers.

People make their own decisions.

Except when there is no free market to create a solution. In a way, it is analogous to the circumstances that led to judicial intervention to counter the era of "we don't serve your kind here". There was no free market available to the black people denied service at restaurants and other businesses. It is exactly the same here. As the de facto "public square", an argument can be made that such social media platforms are subject to the "right of accommodation" the Supreme Court discovered in the Constitution. Twitter and Facebook have a monopoly on public discourse as social media. Others exist, such as Gab or Parler; but Twitter and Facebook built up a critical mass of user base and interaction, rendering those other options irrelevant. (It is the symbolic equivalent to telling "those kind" that they can pick up their meals at the kitchen door around back.)

And, this opens up some GREAT tools for future Democratic Socialist elected presidents.

ETA:
Let's not forget his campaign included vague promises about changing the 1A. Here's his follow-through.

And, in what way does this EO change 1A?

The only "threat" is a social media platform losing section 230 liability protection for acting as a publisher rather than as a platform. How does that jeopardize 1A protections?

 

[chipbennett]

I remember that same argument being made, though, that the Big 3 networks choked off any competitors. Fox, while a big company, didn't mind doing it.

So why doesn't Fox start a social media platform for conservatives? The tech is easy enough.

After that EO, they sure as hell won't.

Heck, that EO could kill INGO.

[Citation Needed] for INGO editorializing user-created content, or censoring that content due to ideological bias.

 

[actaeon277]

Y[video=youtube_share;K4XJHX_pNOc]https://youtu.be/K4XJHX_pNOc[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

[Citation Needed] for INGO editorializing user-created content, or censoring that content due to ideological bias.

You weren't around much over the weekend, eh?

ETA:

It is not clear that censoring due to ideological bias is anywhere near the test. That lack of clarity creates a big risk for any site that hosts user created content. Like INGO.

 

[jamil]

You weren't around much over the weekend, eh?

INGO editorialized and censored user-created content due to ideological bias? Where's that thread? I keep missing the good stuff.

 

[T.Lex]

INGO editorialized and censored user-created content due to ideological bias. Where's that thread? I keep missing the good stuff.

Sorry, catch the edit, too.

The deeper issue is not whether it does, but whether it is perceived to do so.

Unless we really do want to ignore the cost - in dollars and resources - of defending a DOJ investigation.

This EO is a move towards lowering the bar for both liability and investigation. Shutting down the entrance to the public square is even more effective than canceling any single orator.

 

[chipbennett]

You weren't around much over the weekend, eh?

ETA:

It is not clear that censoring due to ideological bias is anywhere near the test. That lack of clarity creates a big risk for any site that hosts user created content. Like INGO.

It is precisely the test - or, more accurately, it is precisely the action that risks losing section 230 liability protection.

Now, am I having another early-20s chipbennett supports the Patriot Act moment, where I fail to recognize the unintended consequences and abuses that would result? Possibly. But first amendment protections are strong, and supported by ample precedent case law. All that's really at risk is opening the door to a platform to be sued for liability. For that to happen, there needs to be an actual tort involved. And then a court case, and a finding and damages against the platform.

Of course, I've already stated that I would love to see the Covington kids sue Jack out of social media platform existence.

 

[jamil]

Sorry, catch the edit, too.

The deeper issue is not whether it does, but whether it is perceived to do so.

Unless we really do want to ignore the cost - in dollars and resources - of defending a DOJ investigation.

This EO is a move towards lowering the bar for both liability and investigation. Shutting down the entrance to the public square is even more effective than canceling any single orator.

The EO appears to acknowledge that online platforms have a right to moderate for inappropriate content. That has nothing to do with ideological reasons. So I'm waiting to hear the list of ideological reasons INGO moderates content. You keep and I keep wondering WTF? Do you have a chapter and verse that's particularly troubling? I'm not a lawyer so maybe it's escaped me. But all this thing seems to do is give the FTC so much time to clarify where the line is for platforms losing their immunity under the act.

 

[T.Lex]

Now, am I having another early-20s chipbennett supports the Patriot Act moment, where I fail to recognize the unintended consequences and abuses that would result?

Yes, yes you are.

All that's really at risk is opening the door to a platform to be sued for liability. For that to happen, there needs to be an actual tort involved. And then a court case, and a finding and damages against the platform.

No, that is not all that is at risk. But, I'll address that more in my response to jamil.

Of course, I've already stated that I would love to see the Covington kids sue Jack out of social media platform existence.

Me, too. But that is because we align with the Covington kids more than the "other side."

Turn the tables a bit ideologically, TCOT as the aggressor, and things spin differently.

The EO appears to acknowledge that online platforms have a right to moderate for inappropriate content. That has nothing to do with ideological reasons. So I'm waiting to hear the list of ideological reasons INGO moderates content. You keep and I keep wondering WTF? Do you have a chapter and verse that's particularly troubling? I'm not a lawyer so maybe it's escaped me. But all this thing seems to do is give the FTC so much time to clarify where the line is for platforms losing their immunity under the act.

So, first, the entire thing is an affront. To his credit, the preamble that lays out why he wants to do this is pretty honest: he doesn't like their ideology. Against that backdrop, the entire thing is as blatantly anti-1A as Obama's effort to use the CDC to "clarify" whether "gun violence" is an epidemic is anti-2A.

Now, that brings us to the practical effect of it - and chip, bring your risk mitigation hat.

Pre-EO, the conversation with someone hosting content had immunity as the foundation. Good faith enforcement of reasonable rules and documentation of how that was done made it pretty safe. (Laymen's terms, there.)

Post-EO, the solidity of that foundation is in doubt. If someone is spending $5k (conservatively) for content hosting for a hobby and there was little risk of liability, then that's no big deal. And if it generates some revenue to offset the cost, then that's great. If it breaks even, that's a good year.

Now, that $5k spend could turn into thousands of dollars of expenses (maybe tens of thousands) if some .gov functionary doesn't like what is being said.

The entire 1A rubric is based on limiting government to content-neutral rules. This upends that. The content is the target.

And the Fairness Doctrine was always a bad idea.

 

[jamil]

...

So, first, the entire thing is an affront. To his credit, the preamble that lays out why he wants to do this is pretty honest: he doesn't like their ideology. Against that backdrop, the entire thing is as blatantly anti-1A as Obama's effort to use the CDC to "clarify" whether "gun violence" is an epidemic is anti-2A.

Huh? Are we reading the same document? It lays out the case for free speech and the importance of having open dialog as the basis for the EO.

Now, that brings us to the practical effect of it - and chip, bring your risk mitigation hat.

Pre-EO, the conversation with someone hosting content had immunity as the foundation. Good faith enforcement of reasonable rules and documentation of how that was done made it pretty safe. (Laymen's terms, there.)

Post-EO, the solidity of that foundation is in doubt. If someone is spending $5k (conservatively) for content hosting for a hobby and there was little risk of liability, then that's no big deal. And if it generates some revenue to offset the cost, then that's great. If it breaks even, that's a good year.

Now, that $5k spend could turn into thousands of dollars of expenses (maybe tens of thousands) if some .gov functionary doesn't like what is being said.

The entire 1A rubric is based on limiting government to content-neutral rules. This upends that. The content is the target.

And the Fairness Doctrine was always a bad idea.

Why do you keep saying it's about ideology? It's specifically NOT about ideology. The preamble pretty much says that it shouldn't be about ideology. Show me the chapter and verse in the EO that says the FTC is ordered to make it about ideology. And since you can't do this, surely you're basing this on some kind of slippery slope. Okay, so where's the order to create the mechanism that's going to make this devolve into the government revoking immunity based on ideology?

And about the Fairness doctrine, why don't you make the case that made it a bad idea? As I recall, when the fairness doctrine was around, I mean, you always kinda knew that the press leaned left, but it wasn't overt. And they did kinda tend to show both sides of things. So make the case for the downside of that.

 

[T.Lex]

Huh? Are we reading the same document? It lays out the case for free speech and the importance of having open dialog as the basis for the EO.

Why do you keep saying it's about ideology? It's specifically NOT about ideology. The preamble pretty much says that it shouldn't be about ideology. Show me the chapter and verse in the EO that says the FTC is ordered to make it about ideology. And since you can't do this, surely you're basing this on some kind of slippery slope. Okay, so where's the order to create the mechanism that's going to make this devolve into the government revoking immunity based on ideology?

Wait. What ideology is Trump accusing the Socials of censoring?

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

Is he worried about them deleting or "disappearing" information from CNBC?

Oh, or are we now taking Trump only literally?

And about the Fairness doctrine, why don't you make the case that made it a bad idea? As I recall, when the fairness doctrine was around, I mean, you always kinda knew that the press leaned left, but it wasn't overt. And they did kinda tend to show both sides of things. So make the case for the downside of that.

No they didn't. Its like now, when the 2 sides are liberal and not-quite-as-liberal.

Well, I can remember back to the late 70s. I think it was trashed in the mid-80s when I was in high school, maybe even under Reagan. Before the late 70s, there may have been earnest attempts to abide by it.

Basically, the fundamental problem was that it made .gov the arbiter of what was "fair" or "balanced." That's not a conservative philosophy. And the only way to enforce it is to manage content. "NPR, we're going to fine you because you didn't have a conservative that we like." It is unworkable.