Let's talk first amendment, and social media

[Tigran]

You do have that right, you know. People exercise it every day to call each other the worst things you can imagine. The only thing you need be aware of is that there are legal avenues open to your targets for the most egregious lies.

Actually.. If you honestly think I do that right. I'm done with you. You obviously don't know the law and dumb as fuck... So yeah.

 

[FGFlann]

Actually.. If you honestly think I do that right. I'm done with you. You obviously don't know the law and dumb as fuck... So yeah.

Damn...

 

[notimp]

>Claims he has not eaten the bait.

>Proceeds to gobble up even more bait.

So I guess I dont give you two hours to think straight anymore.

Who defines the bait?

Because I'm definitely over, acting as if 'burning out the bad stuff' is the way to save a free society, whenever free speech, separation of power, or criticism of public censorship under a ruleset that is public and not transparent, is temporarily not convenient.

The reaction here is as harsh as it is, because companies want to detract from the fact, that they themselves moved society into this place, where you have no win/win outcome anymore.

So something has to give, and in this case its civil rights.

But what I'm not ok with, is people simply rectifying this, with resorting to the legal right of private companies, to 'do what they want' to speech on their platforms, based on terms of conditions, that were never meant to 'solve' a political or civic crisis.


And if you make them the toolsets to solve a political crisis, then dont hide from the consequences.

Standing shoulder to shoulder against extremism, is correct in this situation - but if that pattern repeats unreflected, dont even claim, that you have free political speech as part of your political system anymore.

Especially not, when CEOs now argue for preemptive actions taken, so their companies dont have to employ those restrictions, post facto, which puts them in the limelight. (Because that is all those actions are aiming for, delegation of responsibility to another 'centralized entity' not separation of power, limits to reach, enabling of counterspeech. No, deplatforming, silencing, finding opinions to promote 'truth' as defined by an elevated committee, .. And that as the heart of the democratic process.)

So yeah, lets get all back in line and promote, that censorship based on a private interpretation of a risk of further escalation is the wave of the future of democracy now.

 

[FAST6191]

Have not gone through the whole thread yet.

Yes the first amendment is for government actors as that is arguably the limit of the power, justifiably one at that (government overreach is a thing I would oppose).

The underlying principle of free speech however is a philosophical one, one that existed before the US was a thing (it is not like the people after they realised they hosed it up with the constitution and needed a quick change invented it themselves) and exists elsewhere. It is one that various social meeja companies have claimed to support and be expressions of at various points in time, though whether they now conform to it is a different matter entirely.
One can then judge someone by those standards. Just as it is not illegal to cheat on your partner (in most cases anyway -- military stuff where they are worried about blackmail material being a thing so they make it illegal is dubious but hey) but many would view you as an arsehole for doing it.

This is an important distinction and one often forgotten and overlooked or even unknown.

I happen to think freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and the informally understood US model is not bad. This is to say libel/slander (as a general principle, public vs private figure stuff might be open for some debate) and direct incitement* or obvious incitement (leader at a speech) are the main exceptions. The pornography/obscenity stuff I am not going to sign off on as is. Equally they have not had the best history (we are only just over 100 years since some of the anti world war 1 stuff got someone locked up https://depts.washington.edu/antiwar/WW1_reds.shtml ) but I can go with ideals.
So not an absolutist but strong free speech is the way forward and that is a hill I am quite prepared to die on -- I can understand those willing to run silent, run deep (good luck there those going for it, enjoy the bonfires), however at this point I figure I am fucked either way.
I would say hate speech is free speech -- as a general principle the someone, somewhere is going to be offended (if it is "damaging" then maybe you need to go back into shelter and try this real world thing after you get over that) by something and frankly the option to always do it makes sense. Might well make you an arsehole. Does not mean the government can fine or imprison you (government sanctioned bodies like professional institutions is a different discussion, and sports bodies is another one again. Such things do not endear such bodies to me though, even if pragmatically "payment now means greater gains in the long run" is a thing you opt for). If someone does not want to be your friend, do a deal, sleep with you or employ you because of that then they might be losing out but actions and consequences and all that.
On gay cakes that would fall under compelled speech which is a parallel and inherent part of things here. Now I would say grow the fuck up and you no more care about karen and karen marrying than you do if John "the boy" Doe genuinely has a happy 50th birthday/retirement or had a fatal car crash on the way there. Never the less I can say compelling things is bad. This would extend to pronouns as well.
Would not have arrested that person that refused marriage certs either, scope to fire them on the spot without any severance (unless they managed to sneak that into contract) though -- refusal to do your job is scope for dismissal in most places.

*in another thread I saw someone say that el presidente supporting one Mr Rittenhouse (then categorised as a supporter even if that was anything but in the background of the situation or the time since) served as a traitorous (or akin to it) act. This would I would disagree with even if I did not see the situation as a self defence one in an unrelated matter, and as I do that is patently absurd.

As part of this I will also note that offensive today may well be someone's rights tomorrow. Or are we done as a general concept? All good, bit of cleanup but no more big works need doing.

I am not sure I agree with the "el presidente can't block people" but if it is being used as an official communique service/sole distribution point then I can see the reasoning for that at least.

Section 230 aka how do you run a website with comments or offer hosting/bandwidth services if any comment or content from your users (that you have no control over) could get you sued into oblivion is something of a necessary thing.
The various companies dancing between "I am merely a host service" vs "fuck you that is what you can't say, begone" as it befits their bizarre whims really does rankle. Not as much as banks saying begone troublesome peasant, with domain registrars not so far behind.
As presumably that would not allow you to get rid of spam then there appears to be scope for limitations/exceptions to that.
I am not sure I buy the "new public square" even if it is arguably de facto that. If you do play to that you almost enshrine a monopoly.
Hopefully it is all rendered moot by a nice p2p and/or federated setup, would be amusing that it is basically a reinvented usenet after all this time.

That said I don't agree at all with Facebook's, youtube's and Twitter's standards here. Sorely wanting and overbearing being how I categorise them. Similarly if I were to pick someone to set standards for me on what I should and should not be allowed to see... the US tech sector is not the last place (give or take them being thralls to it then China would be a worse choice) but very very very low down on the list.

Google and Apple yanking things from their various shops... not a good look but whether I would make it illegal I don't know. It is another reason I like platforms I can control myself -- I am a big boy, don't need daddy google and apple, and were I inclined to have kids then I can sort those too. I don't however know that I would feel anything for andrios or otherwise object if they were told to allow full root access to devices people own else get lost -- my device, my rules.
Hopefully at least this spurs the end of "apps" and instead websites can be a thing again (with the remote control games via web browser thing I think we might be back at web tech being enough). In an ideal world a better competitor would arise though and blow them both away -- a nice open device I (or the local fixing guy) can replace the battery and screen on, maybe has some schematics with chips available, maybe even scope for an upgrade if someone wants to sell me a better camera module or whatever, that has SD slots and HDMI out... what a horrible world that would be.
Now if they take it upon themselves after that to block websites we have the stage set for a proper fight.

 

[leon315]

Since this seems like Trump is going to try to spin the narrative (after his ban from twitter) that for some reason, somehow with twitter banning him being a violation of the first amendment. Which is stupid, and arguably is actually backwards with him trying to force these entities to allow his speech or (similar rhetoric) on it's platforms. The first amendment protects the people FROM the government. Aka companies, such as facebook and twitter, banning people or a certain group DOES NOT VIOLATE the first amendment, they are not a government entity. I feel like it's important to state this before everything unfolding this week. If anything, trump trying to force his speech onto those platforms would be a violation of the first amendment.
It's like saying every newspaper in the country needs to have what he says...
which would be very authoritarian considering that thought

not everyone 's american, why don't both explain what 's the first amendment 1st?

 

[wartutor]

I don't see why people think this is funny or even justifiable. What would of happened if Twitter blocked all the black lives matters people because of all the riots. (And there was alot of riots even thought the media kept most a secret and down played them.) Cities looked like war zones when they went through but it was OK. When you take a big portion (almost half of america) and make them feel like they don't matter and their voice can't be heard you are asking them to just escalade and do something about it. Dumb ass's keep fanning a flame better hope their ass don't get burned. Remember these are American people with right and are willing to fight to keep those right. I have heard people blaming the police for standing back but when you are that out numbered and quiet truthfully probably don't care to protect the same people that was screaming "defund the police" a few months ago I don't blame them. All these democrats and liberals can only see shit one way. Keep it up and they will be walking the streets armed to the teeth. They need to calm shit down instead of pressing the issue or shits just goin to get worse. I don't know why people can't see that. Keep pushing and making them feel oppressed lets see what happends.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I don't see why people think this is funny or even justifiable. What would of happened if Twitter blocked all the black lives matters people because of all the riots. (And there was alot of riots even thought the media kept most a secret and down played them.) Cities looked like war zones when they went through but it was OK. When you take a big portion (almost half of america) and make them feel like they don't matter and their voice can't be heard you are asking them to just escalade and do something about it. Dumb ass's keep fanning a flame better hope their ass don't get burned. Remember these are American people with right and are willing to fight to keep those right. I have heard people blaming the police for standing back but when you are that out numbered and quiet truthfully probably don't care to protect the same people that was screaming "defund the police" a few months ago I don't blame them. All these democrats and liberals can only see shit one way. Keep it up and they will be walking the streets armed to the teeth. They need to calm shit down instead of pressing the issue or shits just goin to get worse. I don't know why people can't see that. Keep pushing and making them feel oppressed lets see what happends.

This may be even more hypocritical than anything Tabitha has posted. Maybe. What a complete load of bullshit.

 

[notimp]

@FAST6191: Wow, we went into abstractions really fast.

Why not stay with the example? A political leader is silenced by a subset of private companies, that control public discourse, on grounds of doing something bad in the future by a ruleset thats neither public nor consistent - as a deterrance from them having created the very forces that allowed that person to get to power in the first place?

How about - if employed as a constant this serves as a tool to silence all discontent, injects self censorship of fear of getting banned based on an unclear criteria, manipulates the political process, and only remains in place, so larger entities in the media space are even thinkable, without people being turned off by those network leads actual opinions on whats good or bad in society as a whole?

Currently their 'actual opinions', independent of their actions, are hidden behind "we dont know them yet, maybe science can come up with what opinion we will have on this in the future".

Wasnt that the motive behind first hiding them (we are only a public carrier), and is now behind containing a public narrative, that on certain issues has to be entirely void of criticism, resorting to censorship of the worst kind - as in one, that if people dont conform gets them put on the sidelines of society - unable to participate, at the whim of some floaty consensus forming in the minds of some tech CEOs?

Whats the 'family cheating' and 'free speech always had limitations' doing in there. I mean, sure - but come on. Thats not the way to rectify that form of overreach.

 

[wartutor]

This may be even more hypocritical than anything Tabitha has posted. Maybe. What a complete load of bullshit.

Dont know what's hypocritical about my post. How about you elaborate and tell me how my opinion is wrong. Go ahead and tell everyone how they should think while you are at it. This is what happens when these over privileged idiots get together and for what is now called cancel culture. If you dont agree with their ideas they instantly just call your opinion ignorant, racist, or even outright compare people to nazi's so go ahead tell me how I'm wrong when I see people passed off, believing they are not being heard, and being oppressed. I don't believe I said anything to far off the wall but go ahead supreme leader tell me how the fuck I should think.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Dont know what's hypocritical about my post. How about you elaborate and tell me how my opinion is wrong. Go ahead and tell everyone how they should think while you are at it. This is what happens when these over privileged idiots get together and for what is now called cancel culture. If you dont agree with their ideas they instantly just call your opinion ignorant, racist, or even outright compare people to nazi's so go ahead tell me how I'm wrong when I see people passed off, believing they are not being heard, and being oppressed. I don't believe I said anything to far off the wall but go ahead supreme leader tell me how the fuck I should think.

Well I certainly wasn't expecting you to cry. But okay. You telling everyone how they should think, while crying about those dirty liberals telling everyone how they should think is being a hypocrite. Are you satisfied now? Or am I going to get the typical deplorable loser "But but but!!!!" rebuttal? Sorry facts hurt your feelings so much. Deal with it, snowflake. So much melting and tears you morons could create an entire new ocean. Big baby.

 

[Goku1992A]

I don't really "agree" with Trump getting banned but I get it. It is a hidden rule once you become a public figure free speech or not what you say can hurt against you regardless how your personal stance is on it. America is a cliché they say this is land of the free but it's far from free.

Right to free speech isn't right to free speech It's just like Sony despite you buying your PS4/PS5 per Sony it DOESNT belong to you.

 

[Ericzander]

I wish the first amendment discussions were this misinformed and angry in my law school classes.

At the end of the day, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest (lol), and all those other PRIVATE companies did not violate the law or anyone's rights as far as banning Trump is concerned.

When are you subject to the first amendment? When you are either (I) a public entity or (II) performing a function that is traditionally exclusively done by the government.

These social media sites (including GBAtemp) are not traditional public forums, nor are they performing functions that are traditionally exclusively done by the government. Exclusive being the key word here. Then there's the whole Section 230 situation that's being discussed. As long as it's around, we circumvent these issues entirely.

Now, to counter anybody who wants to reply to this comment with something based entirely on feelings or what they think SHOULD be the case; just keep in mind that all I'm saying is what the case actually is.

The law is what it is. The first amendment is what it is. You can argue that it needs to be changed, sure. But as an angry and sad man once said "the facts don't care about your feelings."

 

[Goku1992A]

I wish the first amendment discussions were this misinformed and angry in my law school classes.

At the end of the day, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest (lol), and all those other PRIVATE companies did not violate the law or anyone's rights as far as banning Trump is concerned.

When are you subject to the first amendment? When you are either (I) a public entity or (II) performing a function that is traditionally exclusively done by the government.

These social media sites (including GBAtemp) are not traditional public forums, nor are they performing functions that are traditionally exclusively done by the government. Exclusive being the key word here. Then there's the whole Section 230 situation that's being discussed. As long as it's around, we circumvent these issues entirely.

Now, to counter anybody who wants to reply to this comment with something based entirely on feelings or what they think SHOULD be the case; just keep in mind that all I'm saying is what the case actually is.

The law is what it is. The first amendment is what it is. You can argue that it needs to be changed, sure. But as an angry and sad man once said "the facts don't care about your feelings."

I think 9/10 times you give up all of your rights when you accept the terms of conditions. Many people (including myself) scroll pass those long ass paragraphs because I'm pretty sure they do include in there what they can/cant do to your account.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Even if there were no terms or conditions, and even if the 1st Amendment didn't apply very specifically to the things Ericzander laid out, it seems the right still have the odd notion that freedom of speech = freedom of consequence. I'll use this example again: Go tell your boss they're the most worthless asshole on the face of the planet and that they can fuck off and die. Was your freedom of speech violated because you were fired for enacting on said freedom?

 

[Plasmaster09]

Fox is no longer right-wing.

Section 230 is unconstitutional.

To anybody saying "build your own Twitter", did you see what happened to Parler?

It died a quick yet still incredibly painful death, finishing off with all of the horrible and incriminating shit people put on there getting scraped and leaked to the public.
Like it deserved, tbh.
This is what happens when delusional tech-illiterate reality-distanced boomers try to make a platform basically just for their hate circlejerking (the whole "complete free speech" thing sure didn't apply to anyone that dared say or do anything vaguely left-wing) but simultaneously depend on numerous companies that really don't want to be stained with that.

Even if there were no terms or conditions, and even if the 1st Amendment didn't apply very specifically to the things Ericzander laid out, it seems the right still have the odd notion that freedom of speech = freedom of consequence. I'll use this example again: Go tell your boss they're the most worthless asshole on the face of the planet and that they can fuck off and die. Was your freedom of speech violated because you were fired for enacting on said freedom?

THIS.
Twitter bans, companies cutting ties with and basically technologically asphyxiating Parler...
are consequences for actions.
This entire discussion is basically a company-sized repeat of the whole "cancel culture" argument.
If someone does something bad (like saying something horrifically bigoted, inciting violence, COMMITTING violence...) and they get punished because of it, that is their consequence.
Private companies choosing to ban or otherwise 'silence' people for doing things like this is not unjust censorship- it's just the consequences for being a horrible person on social media.
This isn't some kind of Orwellian dystopia. It's a parent telling their grossly misbehaving child to go to their room, think about what they've done and come back out when they're going to behave better.

 

[notimp]

Oh look, Chris Hedges is allowed on american news again...



Well, at least I'm a dissident voice then, but still allowed in the US discourse...?



Oh wait, this is just posturing, otherwise Hedges would not have been chosen to helm the contrarian position. This is really just, to drive home, that only mad people would take that stance. Damn, can I please make it undone that I took the bait? Please, let me back into your society again!

 

[Seliph]

People acting like this is a grand conspiracy to "censor" conservative voices are so funny to me. This is just how Capitalism works. Platforms like Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc don't want to have a bad image from being associated with reactionary weirdos because that association hurts profits so they kick off reactionary weirdos to preserve their profits. They do this to any sort of content that hurts their influence/profit margins. For example, I've been suspended on Twitter for calling myself a f*ggot, and videos on YouTube have always been demonetized for talking about LGBT issues.

 

[FAST6191]

People acting like this is a grand conspiracy to "censor" conservative voices are so funny to me. This is just how Capitalism works. Platforms like Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc don't want to have a bad image from being associated with reactionary weirdos because that association hurts profits so they kick off reactionary weirdos to preserve their profits. They do this to any sort of content that hurts their influence/profit margins. For example, I've been suspended on Twitter for calling myself a f*ggot, and videos on YouTube have always been demonetized for talking about LGBT issues.

So they are seeing an injustice but attributing the wrong reason, or perhaps not understanding the full scope, like all those people claiming active current racism by police/society at large earlier in the summer? Laugh at them if you will but I would sooner redirect them into doing something useful -- rather than yelling at people for hairstyles or whatever if they started kicking in the virtual doors of such companies it would make for a rather different turn of events.

I agree most of these services seem to be loss leaders for driving people to other platforms, securing eyeballs for adverts or occasionally pushing the ideologies/philosophies of those in charge of the place (or occasionally their employees if they happen to listen to such things, fools if you ask me), somewhere in there being a profit motive, or what they think is a profitable course of action (plenty of advertisers, whom they desperately seem to want to court).

I am also content to judge them if not for being hypocritical in their support of free speech (many did claim to want to be that around their inception and rise) then for not supporting it as a general concept.

 

[GanjiMEX]

TL;DR: Apparently Freedom of Speech is illegal because companies want AND must look like a white right-handed church

 

[notimp]

People acting like this is a grand conspiracy to "censor" conservative voices are so funny to me. This is just how Capitalism works. Platforms like Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc don't want to have a bad image from being associated with reactionary weirdos because that association hurts profits so they kick off reactionary weirdos to preserve their profits.

Exactly the opposite of what the UCLA information studies professor above is saying, and the opposite of what happened in reality.

Trump was a boon to media conglomerates, especially cable news, they manufactured their entire media strategy around him being controversial and sold ads and subscriptions against that -- with FOX news becoming the Trump PR network until election day - but what do I and the media study professor know...

Social Media cut their ties at the latest possible moment, and is now trying to escape responsibility for the social media revolution, by acting especially tough on the rebound. Or do you know other sources, that spread the election fraud lie? Besides social media and a specifically created blogosphere (to influence social media pickup).

Also - this might be how capitalism works, but this (current deplatforming, of not only the politician, but also his entire network, his funding sources, their campaigns own social media tool, ...) is not how democracy works.