I’m a First Amendment absolutist -- there has to be government censorship to raise a concern. I don’t care if private companies are doing it. I don’t use Facebook, or Twitter or other social media because I don’t want to be controlled or co-opted by their algorithms. I don’t have any trouble expressing my ideas to the audience I want …
I’m a First Amendment absolutist -- there has to be government censorship to raise a concern. I don’t care if private companies are doing it. I don’t use Facebook, or Twitter or other social media because I don’t want to be controlled or co-opted by their algorithms. I don’t have any trouble expressing my ideas to the audience I want to reach -- people that I actually know, which are the only people that I’m likely to convince of my beliefs. So whenever I read a piece like this I always want to know 2 things, which David and Bari utterly fail to address: (1) why we need to give First Amendment protection to speech on private networks and (2) how you would go about accomplishing this under our existing Constitution. David’s argument that people who object to protecting the “digital public square” are being disingenuous because they are the same ones pushing for legislation to control social media is a non sequitur. The important question is how do these private companies rise to the level of acting as the government, which is a question that Bari never poses and David never answers. The second point is that neither Bari in her questions nor David in his comments states just how you would ban “censorship” of social media under our current Constitution. He says we need a new Teddy Roosevelt to break up the concerted action by social media companies, but he never explains what laws would be legitimate under the Constitution to force companies to permit speech on their platforms. If Bari and David really want to move the ball forward on this issue, they need to address the issue, as many European countries are trying to do, of how to balance unfettered speech with the harm caused by the dissemination of misinformation and false claims. Until they do, I’ll remain a First Amendment absolutist.
What if Big Tech is tweaking their algorithms to align with the narrative preferences of the Government in order to avoid an enforcement action by the Government?
Jim -- I haven't followed it closely, but I've seen references to European countries. who are not constrained by our First Amendment, trying to decide how to regulate social media and protect individual's privacy rights. Some of the discussions that I've seen mentioned revolve around whether false information can be censored and who gets to decide that. I haven't seen any specific regulations in any country, but there seems to be a more complete discussion of the issues. Do you know if I'm wrong about that?
jt...welp, they are moving in the right direction, but we need 15 more. With the west coast and new england being negatory at best...? The direction is positive but close.
I like Your comment, M. Hybel ,and the suggestions below. The only thing I don't like about treating SM as publishers, is that the Woke own the publishers already, and they're censoring what books get published and what don't. Woke do, anti- don't.
I understand the Bill o' Rights only constrains what the Gubmint can and can't do. Dunno for certain, not Constitutional lawyer. But that's probably the case.
Bring Teddy Roosevelt back from the dead and split 'em up. Two or three Googles and FB competing AGAINST each other. And if they compete AGAINST each other, instead-a forming an oligopoly (or however it's spelt).. Well, ODDS are that some SM media will censor but not ALL-a them. That'd be great. Settle for Google1 to censor Dems and Google2 to censor Repubs.
Fantasy? PRobably so, in the political environment we have these days.
100%, Dubious. They are either publishers who can choose content (and carry the requisite liability), OR they are common carriers with no control over content, but with liability exemptions. They don't get to play both sides.
I’m a First Amendment absolutist -- there has to be government censorship to raise a concern. I don’t care if private companies are doing it. I don’t use Facebook, or Twitter or other social media because I don’t want to be controlled or co-opted by their algorithms. I don’t have any trouble expressing my ideas to the audience I want to reach -- people that I actually know, which are the only people that I’m likely to convince of my beliefs. So whenever I read a piece like this I always want to know 2 things, which David and Bari utterly fail to address: (1) why we need to give First Amendment protection to speech on private networks and (2) how you would go about accomplishing this under our existing Constitution. David’s argument that people who object to protecting the “digital public square” are being disingenuous because they are the same ones pushing for legislation to control social media is a non sequitur. The important question is how do these private companies rise to the level of acting as the government, which is a question that Bari never poses and David never answers. The second point is that neither Bari in her questions nor David in his comments states just how you would ban “censorship” of social media under our current Constitution. He says we need a new Teddy Roosevelt to break up the concerted action by social media companies, but he never explains what laws would be legitimate under the Constitution to force companies to permit speech on their platforms. If Bari and David really want to move the ball forward on this issue, they need to address the issue, as many European countries are trying to do, of how to balance unfettered speech with the harm caused by the dissemination of misinformation and false claims. Until they do, I’ll remain a First Amendment absolutist.
What if Big Tech is tweaking their algorithms to align with the narrative preferences of the Government in order to avoid an enforcement action by the Government?
Paul...i see your point, thanks. How do you see the Euro countries addressing this issue?
I do think that many here in the US, do think they are working on the problem...but
Jim -- I haven't followed it closely, but I've seen references to European countries. who are not constrained by our First Amendment, trying to decide how to regulate social media and protect individual's privacy rights. Some of the discussions that I've seen mentioned revolve around whether false information can be censored and who gets to decide that. I haven't seen any specific regulations in any country, but there seems to be a more complete discussion of the issues. Do you know if I'm wrong about that?
Paul... oh no , i don't know about any specifics.
Thanks jt...i see that the EU might have a rein on some social media.
Also, Conv. of States are up to 19, with 15 more States needed...not easy, but maybe an avenue.
I didn't know they were over half-Way there. Does that make it a done deal, or someone hafta do somethin' after that?
jt...welp, they are moving in the right direction, but we need 15 more. With the west coast and new england being negatory at best...? The direction is positive but close.
Ah. TY for taking the trouble to find out.
Just saw this recently: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/25/european-union-big-tech-googld-facebook-meta?CMP=twt_gu#Echobox=1648220990
I read it too fast and won't reread it for a while. THIN' it would pertain.
I like Your comment, M. Hybel ,and the suggestions below. The only thing I don't like about treating SM as publishers, is that the Woke own the publishers already, and they're censoring what books get published and what don't. Woke do, anti- don't.
I understand the Bill o' Rights only constrains what the Gubmint can and can't do. Dunno for certain, not Constitutional lawyer. But that's probably the case.
Bring Teddy Roosevelt back from the dead and split 'em up. Two or three Googles and FB competing AGAINST each other. And if they compete AGAINST each other, instead-a forming an oligopoly (or however it's spelt).. Well, ODDS are that some SM media will censor but not ALL-a them. That'd be great. Settle for Google1 to censor Dems and Google2 to censor Repubs.
Fantasy? PRobably so, in the political environment we have these days.
Given what they do, maybe it should be "S&M."
You SO funny! (But right, unfortunately.)
100%, Dubious. They are either publishers who can choose content (and carry the requisite liability), OR they are common carriers with no control over content, but with liability exemptions. They don't get to play both sides.