Big tech censorship struck a blow, are you pleased?

[Juxtapose]

"The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just said @twitter and other social media platforms don’t have an unlimited right to discriminate against speech."

https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1570866359390830592?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Screw censorship and anyone who supports that shit 😎👍

YESSSSSS! FINALLY WE MAY REJOICE!

No, I am not pleased with this.

Updates

+1 y

Had a democrat supporter insult me and then block me. These people are vicious censors and it is very important for us to oppose them at every turn.

His comment was reported and removed. You can disagree with me all you like but if you act like a coward (blocking me, etc) then I'll give you a taste of your own medicine bitch.

Updates

+1 y

From a user:

"They should be treated like telecom companies who are required to provide a public service and not interfere in conversations. Your phone company isn't allowed to listen in on your conversations and suspend you from using your phone if you say something they don't like."

^^ this

[Lliam]

I agree with the ruling.
Social media companies have their own political agendas. They don't just censor hate speech and dangerous information. They simply censor things that they disagree with.
But, as the ruling said, they are not newspapers who have the right to publish what they want. Their jobs are to provide platforms for public discourse.

I've been pissed at these giant corporations for a long time for trampling free speech. They have become propagandists by pushing certain ideological narratives and keeping truthful, factual information from the public. I consider their behavior criminal.

They should be treated like telecom companies who are required to provide a public service and not interfere in conversations. Your phone company isn't allowed to listen in on your conversations and suspend you from using your phone if you say something they don't like. Leave that to law enforcement.

I'd like these corporations to be fined $billions in class action lawsuits to show them that they can't interfere with basic human rights.

[Juxtapose]

Absolutely! Your second to last paragraph especially is something I have been trying to hammer home to people. It's disturbing how many people are okay with being censored.

[KrakenAttackin]

@Juxtapose Yes, the willingness to be censored and monitored is a deep pathology in society.

[ArtemisSilver]

I agree that most subjects should be discussed openly with the exception of incitement to crimes.

These digital services are essentially the modern equivalent of the town square, and it's important that ideas are discussed freely and that people be allowed to think for themselves.

[Juxtapose]

There is also the issue of them behaving like publishers while claiming to be platforms.

[ArtemisSilver]

Yeah, YouTube just jerks their content creators around seemingly at random.

[WindAtMyBack]

I hate what these social media companies do, but I don't like this ruling. People have a right to free speech, but nobody is under any obligation to provide the means of exercising that right.

Freedom of the press means I can start a newspaper and say what I want. But another newspaper is not obligated to print whatever I happen to write. They are not censoring me in any way.

Someone can get on their soapbox and make a speech. But I don't have to provide the soapbox for them.

I don't know much detail about this ruling, but from the little I've read this only means that the tech companies do not have unlimited power to block any content they want. Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume this means it will be judged on a case by case basis rather than a sweeping policy.

Personally I find it disturbing that people think they have a right to use someone else's stuff.

This might be viewed as a conservative victory, since conservatives are a targeted group of these tech companies. But I see this in much the same way that I see a bakery being required to make wedding cakes for a gay couple. The gay couple has a right to choose who they do business with, and the bakery has a right to choose who they do business with also.

It's the same with FB and the others. We have a right to choose if we do business with them, and they have a right to choose if they do business with us.

[findacure4wokeness]

In Australia There is a law restricting how many media outlets a person or company can own due to the bias it would create. You may not be expected to provide the soap box but if I sent goons out to scare everybody that owned one into only let people with certain views to use one then that would closely resemble what we are looking at today.

[Anonymous]

You can either be a public platform or a publisher but NOT both.

You cannot both BE and NOT BE the speaker. The tech tyrants of Google, Facebook, and Twitter have in the last decade been trying to have it both ways.

By claiming to NOT Be the speaker in the context of liability for all the illegal activity that took place on their platforms ranging from organizing Real world crimes to rampant Intellectual Property thief.

While also Claiming to BE the speaker in exercising the right to control what is said and heard.

[hahahmm]

What big tech does is ban people & then refuse to even say exactly why they did. It could just be because one of their workers doesn't like you or what you said. I was banned from one platform for saying a woman who looks 100% like a man is not attractive to straight men. That's bs...

[RealMarek]

Given the huge funding the dominant platforms receive from the government and they way they collude to crush competitors, these are not really independent private companies. The idea that monopolies that are very close to the government should be allowed to hide behind the private/public distinction is absurd.

[rabbitzzz]

The Facebook mods also date real women while giving you bots to befriend with. And if you start to get popular they can put ban hammer at any time for no reason. Such assholes.

Too bad I am not a billionaire and create my own social media like Truth. Social.

[Oigit]

Glad to see it. But it's past time to completely cut the cord between big tech and out government. Even if it means voting officials on both sides of the isle out of office.

[findacure4wokeness]

Censorship is the only thing lairs can use. People who speak the truth weren't afraid of a debate before progressive terrorism was a thing.

[OddBeMe]

They should be regulated by the FCC as media channels.

[KrakenAttackin]

@OddBeMe. How about regulating them as utilities.

[OddBeMe]

@KrakenAttackin yeah sure. I mean the internet should be a utility. Like electricity. And according to stats, more people get news from FB than…actual news. So I’d say social sites should be FCC regulated for truthiness.

[Juxtapose]

The FCC should not be the arbiter of truth because the government is full of liars but they should force social media companies and the like to be like telecommunication companies and not interfere in people's conversations.

[KrakenAttackin]

@Juxtapose. Yes! The government should have no say in "truth".

[Juxtapose]

@KrakenAttackin people are awfully quick to forget that the CIA was running mind control experiments, the government sterilized black people and black people with syphilis were experimented on and ultimately left to die.

People who trust the government to be honest are fucking retarded.

[KrakenAttackin]

@Juxtapose. Completely agreed.

[OddBeMe]

Its not that the govt says whats true. Its that they prosecute mistruths.

[Fuentes]

About damn time, they have no right to force their rainbow hair liberalism onto other humans and force them to agree and stand with them & if not be banned.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Anything that stops censorship I'm all for. 👍

[TroyDT]

I am in the sense that they have been hiding behind the "platform" claim while behaving like publishers.

[KrakenAttackin]

Yes!!! This is just a beginning, but it is a good beginning.

[KrakenAttackin]

Interesting how the girls and manginas are opposed to free speech.

[Snakeyes7]

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.

[jshm2]

You're confused.

The law doesn't apply to "big tech" platforms on the whole. Only to the US, and only to specific entitles in the US.

Read and try again kiddo.

[Juxtapose]

I never said it wasn't lol, nice projection with your confusion.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

I mean... It's their platform. They can do with it as they please. Whoever doesn't like it can leave.

[Juxtapose]

You cannot simultaneously be a publisher and a platform, you have to choose one or the other.

[KrakenAttackin]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8. That's what they said about the Nazi party.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@KrakenAttackin a political party is not supposed to be behave the same way a random site does.
This very site deletes stuff that the moderators don't like. No one complains. What makes Twitter any different?

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@Juxtapose why? I am a platform where people publish things. But I have rules on what can be published.

[Juxtapose]

That's not how it works legally.

[Juxtapose]

Platforms gain specific protection specifically because they do not editorialize.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Two questions.
1 What specific protection they gain?
2. Why legally they can't make rules to what content is published in their platform?

[Juxtapose]

1. A platform is not responsible for the content posted there while a publisher is. The moment you curate content, you are a publisher, period.

2. Because that's like your telecommunications company making rules on what you can say in your private phone calls. To maintain the protection of a platform the platform itself must stay hands off.

An example of a publisher is a newspaper.

[Juxtapose]

https://youtu.be/7j8jEDc2NDA

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

And twitter legally is a publisher or a platform?

[Juxtapose]

They are a platform but not acting like it and this is what this is all about dude.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

I see.

[AngryCarl]

US courts are a joke.

[ninaneedshelp]

It’s about time