Abbott Announces Bill Prohibiting Social Media Censorship

originally posted by: ArMaP
That's a very slippery slope. Does it mean that if someone shares a violence inciting post they cannot delete it? What about people posting about "different" views of Nazism? Or will that law forbid only those companies from "censoring" what the governor thinks is "good"?

That's a good question. The First Amendment constrains Congress. It certainly doesn't mention what a state can (or can't) do.

Gov Abbot pretty much told Big Tech and Social Media to stop messing with people who are conservatives. If the law passes they'll have a choice: Keep messing with people (and deal with the consequences) ... or live and let live. If it was up to me I'd drop Zuck and Jack into the arena. I'd give them a choice and the first option would be to fight one another to the death. If they didn't take that, I'd offer swords to the entire crowd who came to see them die.

A lesson would be learned that day. Constrain yourselves ... or I'll un-constrain the people who want to kill you dead. Ain't that a novel concept?

a reply to: Snarl

There are many questions that could (or should) be asked in a case like this. For example, why did they choose a limit of 100 million active users for the companies that are affected by this law? Why not 50 million? Or 200 million?

And why should they even force something onto those companies because the people chose them over others?
Nobody forced those people to join Facebook or Twitter or whatever, and they had to agree to the their rules (even if they didn't read them, like most people do).

Also, the law's definition of what is an "interactive computer service" is a bit too vague:

(3) "Interactive computer service" means an information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a server, including a service, system, website, web application, or web portal that provides a social media platform for users to engage in expressive activity. The term does not include an Internet service provider as defined by Section 324.055, Business & Commerce Code.

Abbott is so brave to come forward and admit that he doesn't understand the Constituion.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

Facebook and Twitter are PRIVATE companies. This site used to stand up for capitalism and companies rights, and now that you don't like the direction they are taking, you change your minds. Remember the whole "gay cake" thing?

Phone companies and cable companies are private companies too.

So, what's your point?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Where can I get a Texas email address?

What's that?

Email addresses are not location-specific generally speaking.

Did you mean TX physical address?

If so, I can help you out there. My company has a small office right near the airport. As I am in charge of that office (remotely), I'll let the staff know to hold onto your mail and then forward it to you.

You have to be OK with a mailing address of Grapevine, though. We're right near DFW which is actually in Grapevine (not Dallas proper).

originally posted by: Snarl
That's a good question. The First Amendment constrains Congress. It certainly doesn't mention what a state can (or can't) do.

But the Fourteenth does which was affirmed in Hebert v. Louisiana.

a reply to: Riffrafter

What's that?

Email addresses are not location-specific generally speaking.

I know that. It was a joke, seeing as this bill would only protect Texas residents, from Don't Tread on Me's moderating when someone posts something that is deemed political trolling. Something like [email protected] might do it!

At any rate, it's a moot point, as ArMaP pointed out, the bill only applies to platforms that have at least100 million users. So, ATS, and Don't Tread on Me, can breath a sigh of relief.

But thanks for the offer!

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Facebook and Twitter are PRIVATE companies.

No. They're not. They are publicly traded corporations.

Corporations, regardless of what the SC has said, do not have Rights, they are creatures of the State - legal fictions - and as such, can only ever have privileges bestowed by statute - specifically, the statues that provide for the creation of said legal fictions. They are not the same as people, and they can be regulated by statute in ways that real people cannot. For example, publicly traded companies are subject to a whole slew of regulations and laws that real people are not.

Then, there is the 'scale' question. See below...

On top of that, This site used to stand up for capitalism and companies rights, and now that you don't like the direction they are taking, you change your minds. Remember the whole "gay cake" thing?

You are aware that the owners of that bakery did not, contrary to what the lying MSM would have you believe, refuse to sell anyone a cake. They in fact offered to sell them any cake they wanted.

What they did was refuse to provide a very special and unique custom decoration service that they offered to those who were getting married.

If you cannot see the difference between that, and the generic/general services of large, publicly traded virtual monopolies online refusing to sell anything at all to those who they disagree with politically, then you have some learnin' to do.

Sorry, but private companies can do as they wish.

No. They can't.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Ironic, isn't it, that SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people and that money equals free speech, and here are these mega corporations using their free speech money to curtail others' speech that runs counter to their model.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Ironic, isn't it, that SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people and that money equals free speech, and here are these mega corporations using their free speech money to curtail others' speech that runs counter to their model.

Not ironic, just a perfect example of how the SC has devolved into a tool of the corporations...

Congress can fix this by removing such issues from their jurisdiction... this is the only way to fix such things.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Facebook and Twitter are PRIVATE companies. This site used to stand up for capitalism and companies rights, and now that you don't like the direction they are taking, you change your minds. Remember the whole "gay cake" thing?

Sorry, but private companies can do as they wish.

If you don't like it, start your own Facebook or twitter to spread your lies. Seems they don't like doing it anymore.

And Dems have been wanting to make Facebook and Twitter "utilities" for years, so that they CAN be regulated. Is that where you want to go? I'm fine with that.

a reply to: Snarl

States and people can do as they wish too.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I know that. It was a joke...

Well...sh#t.

lol...my bad.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Snarl

There are many questions that could (or should) be asked in a case like this. For example, why did they choose a limit of 100 million active users for the companies that are affected by this law? Why not 50 million? Or 200 million?

And why should they even force something onto those companies because the people chose them over others?
Nobody forced those people to join Facebook or Twitter or whatever, and they had to agree to the their rules (even if they didn't read them, like most people do).

Also, the law's definition of what is an "interactive computer service" is a bit too vague:

(3) "Interactive computer service" means an information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a server, including a service, system, website, web application, or web portal that provides a social media platform for users to engage in expressive activity. The term does not include an Internet service provider as defined by Section 324.055, Business & Commerce Code.

With regard to the people choosing to use the service bit, this is true somewhat. People could easily choose to stop using them. But there arent alternatives. Look at parler, some people with vastly amplified voices complained and got the hosting companies to drop them. They got credit companies to stop processing their payments and ad networks to stop buying space on the site and so on. You can naively believe that these were concerned citizens and perhaps some of them were. But was it in Twitter's interest to amplify their voice? Of course it was shutting down a potential competitor is valuable.

Consider why they were successful in the first place theres all sorts of backdoor deals that allow that. Government included. Do they have an interest in controlling public perception of course. I think most people on this site can agree there. Big psyop, and besides the companies are too big need to get busted down, even twitter.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Facebook and Twitter are PRIVATE companies.

Newspapers are Companies, too. And they are held to a certain standard or can be sued of they don't uphold that Standard. One of those Standards is non-Discrimination.

And if people can sue Facebook and Twitter for Discrimination, Facebook and Twitter stand to lose a lot of money. Private Companies have been successfully sued for that before.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Newspapers are Companies, too. And they are held to a certain standard or can be sued of they don't uphold that Standard. One of those Standards is non-Discrimination.

Please cite the statute that you're referencing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Please cite the statute that you're referencing.

Which part?

If you are talking about Newspapers, here are some links for you. I don't know if they have the Statutes you're looking for.

www.justice.gov...

www.bizjournals.com...

www.npr.org...

apnews.com...

www.theguardian.com...

triblive.com...

And the term Libel is the equivalent of Slander and Defamation of Character in Print - so Newspapers can also be sued for that.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite

Facebook and Twitter are PRIVATE companies..

I always hear that excuse and if they're actively curating content then this makes them 'publishers' which should make them liable for prosecution (just like everybody else).

a reply to: MiddleInsite

Yes, and for the most part it still is. I certainly am.

But, a quick question if I may??

When a business such as Google suddenly begins to create laws, or have them created by its pet politicians, should they then be allowed to carry out "business as usual"?

Should we not be allowed to utilize our pet politicians to stop that sort of thing??

a reply to: CryHavoc

I'm talking about a statute relative to the conversation, these are discrimination lawsuits based on protected classes, your political view is not a protected class.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

Actually it is called fascism when a business colludes with the Democrats. As so they will be regulated as they should be.