Free speech VICTORY: Federal appeals court rules Texas can enforce anti-censorship law aimed at social media platforms

submitted by [deleted] from (citizens.news)

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IndianaJones 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

Based Texas. Hopefully the rest of the world will follow.

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[deleted]

    [–]IndianaJones 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Well, when you put it that way I suppose this does have a lot of disadvantages. Maybe they should only apply this law to big corporations only? Like youtube, reddit, twitter, etc. But even that is unfair. I think the law should be applied to people equally.

    If this law ever becomes federal law, maybe the government should come out with their own social media alternatives. Social media that is owned by the government is admittedly a shit idea, but if this law becomes federal, then the government should just make their own equivalent of youtube, reddit, etc. They should call it FedTube. Feddit. GlowNitter. Etc.

    Since these platforms would be owned by the government, they would have no choice but to allow free speech because the law would say so. So people can own their own private companies and censor as much as they want (Youtube) but also have a government alternative if they want a platform for free speech (Fedtube).

    Just an idea though, it probably has a lot of flaws so take it with a grain of salt. Newsflash though, everything is controlled by (((them))) anyway, and youtube is more than just a "private company". It is the biggest video sharing website in the world, and if you are of this size, you have a responsibility to enforce free speech because of the influence this giant platform has.

    [–]Ethnocrat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Maybe the "99%" shouldn't be so fucking stupid?

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Ethnocrat 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Lame bait, socks.

      [–]FactsNotFox 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Agreed. But why are you lumping yourself with these losers by saying 'we'? I left Reddit and came here but seeing those egregious posts full of disinfo just pisses me off. I'll be leaving soon and you should too.

      [–]monkeymagic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      on what planet is that 99 percent not subject to said disinformation right now? are you seriously under the impression that giant corporations have been waiting to launch 🚀 their disinformation campaigns until texas passed this idiotic “law” that will change absolutely nothing?

      [–]Vulptex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

      But it's also a loss for private property. Platforms should be allowed to do whatever they want. What's not okay is when they abuse government connections to have a monopoly.

      [–]Tarrock 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      But it's also a loss for private property.

      Stop with this libertarian shit with corporations. Corporations shouldn't have rights. If they could make money kicking you in the balls they would.

      [–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Without government's help they have to please customers in order to make money.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I'd benefit if it was illegal to ban me from platforms for my legal and rule abiding speech just because they disagreed with what I wrote.

        Harassment is already illegal, and this doesn't really have anything to do with that. Besides, you run afoul of harassment issues more than anyone else here.

        [–]RedEyedWarrior 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Social media platforms got to where they are through help from the CIA, which is a government agency. Plus, they get social welfare from the government. Therefore, they're not private companies.

        Besides, social media has become public infrastructure. Therefore they should not be allowed to censor.

        [–]Scolias 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        When you start censoring people you're no longer a platform, you're a publisher. Section 230 and all protections associated with it should go right out the window.

        [–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Section 230 shouldn't matter because we shouldn't be blaming for someone else's actions.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        If section 230 didn't exist I can't imagine Saidit existing either. That would mean m7 is liable for everything we said. Who would want that?

        There's better ways to stop censoring people without removing section 230, because that will lead to even more censorship.

        [–]Scolias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Good lord you're not bright. Nobody said section 230 shouldn't exist. Re-read my statement guy.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I misread, but there's not really an effective difference. What does it matter if section 230 is stripped for everyone or it can be removed by challenge. Once section 230 can be challenged, only the people who can afford to address the challenges, big platforms with legal teams, are going to viable.

        Fucking with section 230 is a sucker's move, it leads to more censorship, not less, and it finishes kicking all the small guys off the net.

        [–]meisthebigdumb 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Good. We need regulations to protect free speech from social media censorship.

        [–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        No, we need the government to stop giving their favored companies a monopoly.

        [–]meisthebigdumb 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        And this law will push back against that.

        [–]Ethnocrat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Platforms should be allowed to do whatever they want.

        Why?

        [–]RedEyedWarrior 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        Good news from Texas.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]sproketboy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          Name checks out.

          [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          It's Socks.

          [–]Pis-dur 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Yeah, let's make Internet another TV! /s