Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Friday May 29 2020, @02:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the two-minutes-hate dept.

Leaked draft details Trump's likely attack on technology giants:

The Trump Administration is putting the final touches on a sweeping executive order designed to punish online platforms for perceived anti-conservative bias. Legal scholar Kate Klonick obtained a draft of the document and posted it online late Wednesday night.

[...] The document claims that online platforms have been "flagging content as inappropriate even though it does not violate any stated terms of service, making unannounced and unexplained changes to policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints, and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse."

The order then lays out several specific policy initiatives that will purportedly promote "free and open debate on the Internet."

First up is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

[...] Trump's draft executive order would ask the Federal Communications Commission to clarify Section 230—specifically a provision shielding companies from liability when they remove objectionable content.

[...] Next, the executive order directs federal agencies to review their ad spending to ensure that no ad dollars go to online platforms that "violate free speech principles."

Another provision asks the Federal Trade Commission to examine whether online platforms are restricting speech "in ways that do not align with those entities' public representations about those practices"—in other words, whether the companies' actual content moderation practices are consistent with their terms of service. The executive order suggests that an inconsistency between policy and practice could constitute an "unfair and deceptive practice" under consumer protection laws.

Trump would also ask the FTC to consider whether large online platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become so big that they've effectively become "the modern public square"—and hence governed by the First Amendment.

[...] Finally, the order directs US Attorney General William Barr to organize a working group of state attorneys general to consider whether online platforms' policies violated state consumer protection laws.

[Ed Note - The following links have been added]

Follow Up Article: Trump is desperate to punish Big Tech but has no good way to do it

The Executive Order: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2 3
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday May 29 2020, @02:19PM (150 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Friday May 29 2020, @02:19PM (#1000531)

    I hate Trump as much as anyone with an IQ of more than one digit, but this is actually a good move: it's the first step towards recognizing that social media giants aren't just private companies that do what they want on their servers anymore, but essential forms of communication that must be regulated. I think the POTUS is opening a door he'll wish he hadn't opened later on.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @02:45PM (129 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2020, @02:45PM (#1000543)

      It's the first step towards recognizing that social media giants aren't just private companies that do what they want on their servers anymore, but essential forms of communication that must be regulated.

      And by the same token, the government should be allowed to have control over what's said on Fox News, MSNBC, and Comedy Central, because those are essential forms of communication that must be regulated.

      Oh, wait, no, there's this little thing called the First Amendment which says that the government can make no law abridging what any of us write, and per several Supreme Court cases that also means the government cannot force anybody to say or write anything either. Which means that Twitter, Facebook, et al can do whatever they want on their servers. And if you still think that this is a good idea, consider that as best as I can tell this order allows SoylentNews to be sued if somebody is upset about a comment being modded to -1.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @02:56PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @02:56PM (#1000546)

        >> consider that as best as I can tell this order allows SoylentNews to be sued if somebody is upset about a comment being modded to -1

        Hey, thanks for the money-making idea... those fucking transvestite Muslim millennials should all be lined up against the wall of a transgender restroom.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2020, @05:18PM (5 children)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:18PM (#1000627) Journal

          You won't make any money. SN doesn't moderate -- users moderate -- and so it would keep its CDA protection.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:21AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:21AM (#1000870)

            Your argument won't hold up in court. Someone may have clickyclickyed, but SoylentNews' servers and code did the mod.

            • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:10AM (3 children)

              by Mykl (1112) on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:10AM (#1000931)

              Nice try.

              "Well sure, I pulled the trigger, but it was the gun what done the firing of the bullet!"

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:01PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:01PM (#1001009)

                Servers don't mod people! People mod people!

              • (Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:02PM

                by SpockLogic (2762) on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:02PM (#1001010)

                Fuck Trump and the staircase he rode down on.

                --
                Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @08:24PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @08:24PM (#1001488)

                Well, when the disputed law literally says, "doesn't matter who pulls the trigger, the gun owner is responsible," they are responsible.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @03:00PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @03:00PM (#1000551)

        Which means that Twitter, Facebook, et al can do whatever they want on their servers.

        Host child porn?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:08PM (#1000722)

          They're also not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @03:06PM (44 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @03:06PM (#1000555)

        The cable networks are their owners speaking to you. Twatter and Facefuck's content are the masses trying to communicate with the masses. These platforms are in a market-dominating position. To protect free speech, you can break them apart (as we used to do) or force common carrier rules on them (we also have done this before). The second option will be more to the liking of management.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @04:03PM (31 children)

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2020, @04:03PM (#1000577)

          The way to protect free speech online is to create decentralized systems of communication. That could mean:
          1. Set up your own website where you can say whatever you like.
          2. Use something like Diaspora* instead of Facebook and Twitter.
          3. Use email lists, or even resurrect Usenet.

          And for the short-term, there's always the option of using different forums with looser rules. Heck, independent web forums for just about every little thing imaginable used to be quite common.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:31PM (#1000631)

            As you said, "used to be".

            1) is like "why don't you take two dixie cups and a string".
            2) Fascists will come after the hosting provider and credit card companies of the forum provider if they host "problematic" content.
            3) Email is in the same situation: Due to the spam problem, an oligarchy has formed that is already shadow-banning legitimate email.

            Anyway, nothing in the EO would stop attempts to start up an independent service. It is aimed at the 900 lb gorillas that have the ability to influence what communication the vast majority of people can have.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:23PM (#1000673)
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:04PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:04PM (#1000720)

            even resurrect Usenet.

            Usenet's not dead (well, not dead as in no longer available). It is still there, and it would be good if a few more folks jumped in to bolster the conversations.

            Check out https://www.eternal-september.org/ [eternal-september.org] or https://www.aioe.org/ for free access to non-binary groups.

            The group most aligned with Soylent is 'comp.misc'.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by slinches on Friday May 29 2020, @09:25PM (16 children)

            by slinches (5049) on Friday May 29 2020, @09:25PM (#1000778)

            1. Set up your own website where you can say whatever you like.

            With your site deindexed or on the eighth page of results due to deprioritization in search engines. That is until your domain is delisted entirely by the registrar.

            2. Use something like Diaspora* instead of Facebook and Twitter.

            And have an audience even smaller than posting here on Soylent.

            3. Use email lists, or even resurrect Usenet.

            Email lists aren't public and unsolicited emails get caught in spam filters. Usenet has the same problems as Diaspora, few users and no growth since they require more effort and some non-mainstream technical knowledge to use.

             

            These aren't substitutes for social media any more than going around and trying to talk to everyone face to face would be.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday May 29 2020, @09:41PM

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 29 2020, @09:41PM (#1000788) Journal

              I think you've dismissed #2 too quickly.

              https://fediverse.party/en/post/fediverse-in-2019 [fediverse.party]

              Your audience could definitely be smaller depending on which service you use and how you use it, but it could also be a lot larger.

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:15AM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:15AM (#1000892)

              > And have an audience even smaller than posting here on Soylent.

              Look, the first amendment grants freedom of speech. It doesn't grant a large audience.

              • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:32AM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:32AM (#1000900)

                Look, the first amendment grants freedom of speech. It doesn't grant a large audience.

                Look, the constitution grants freedom of movement. It doesn't grant that someone must let you sit in the front of the bus.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:53AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:53AM (#1000973)

                  You are really trying to compare fact checking or banning hate speech to racial discrimination?

                  Good idea Karen!

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:50PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:50PM (#1001089)

                    There is no such thing as hate speech, you stupid fucking slave. Also, racial or any other discrimination in private affairs is everyone's natural right.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @03:52PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @03:52PM (#1001393)

                      So now seats on public transit are private affairs? Apparently you were sleeping in when they handed out brains.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:17AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:17AM (#1000936)

                We gots 4 peoples here on SN, at any one time. And about 15 out of Ten Thousand accounts active at any one time? Yes, Thank Goodness SN Censors aristarchus, because otherwise he would have an audience of tens, and maybe even tens of tens!

                I had hopes we would outstrip the unameable site, which massive subscriptions and UIDs in the six-or seven-digits. But, alas, such was not to be. The TMB put the kaibosh on the aristarchus early on, and the site ceased to grow. Now, we are only a lesser Gab, or a less gross Voat. I have seen things, that most humans have never seen.

                I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

                Time for Soylent to die. Trump's Execution Order has sealed the fate.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:04PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:04PM (#1001014)

                  "Time for Soylent to die. Trump's Execution Order has sealed the fate."

                  Well, any time you feel the urge to leap off the bridge, you go right ahead.

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:45PM (7 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:45PM (#1001038)

              Ah, so what you're upset about isn't that you can't speak, but that you can't shove your message in the faces of large audiences that didn't ask for your thoughts without help (or spending money on ads).

              That's never been part of First Amendment protections.

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
              • (Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:12PM (6 children)

                by slinches (5049) on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:12PM (#1001047)

                What I'm upset about is that there is no digital public right of way. Every space is owned by someone who is allowed to restrict speech, so there is no real public square. Only private squares that pretend to be public for their own benefit.

                All I want is that if you choose to host a public forum and be protected from the consequences of the speech that happens there, then you must abide by the same rules as a public space and don't get to assert control over what people say there.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @07:10PM (5 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @07:10PM (#1001116)

                  All I want is that if you choose to host a public forum and be protected from the consequences of the speech that happens there, then you must abide by the same rules as a public space and don't get to assert control over what people say there.

                  An interesting idea. If you get it into the right ears, it's even possible that you could get legislation proposed to make that happen.

                  Such legislation would likely run afoul of various constitutional protections like freedom of expression and property rights.

                  Which is too bad for you. If that's really what you want, I suggest you propose new Amendments to repeal the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or convene a constitutional convention [uslegal.com].

                  Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!
                   

                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:09PM (2 children)

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:09PM (#1001337) Journal

                    freedom of expression and property rights

                    What freedom of expression? When you are censored or shadow-banned or down-ranked, you don't have freedom of expression anymore.

                    What property rights? If I want to put a sliding glass door in my house, I have to get a permit from the town, and to get that I have to get an architect to draw up plans. Some property rights. It's the illusion of property rights while the reality is we're all just renters with different landlords.

                    If social media wants the protections that common carrier status affords, it cannot act as a publisher. If it acts as a publisher, then it will be liable for everything its "writers" write. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:37PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:37PM (#1001348)

                      What freedom of expression? When you are censored or shadow-banned or down-ranked, you don't have freedom of expression anymore.

                      Express yourself on someone else's platform (that is, someone else's property) and you abide by *their* rules.

                      Just like when you were a kid and your parents said "You won't do that as long as you live in *my* house!"

                      Want freedom of expression? Express yourself on your own property. Don't like how that works on *other people's property? Too fucking bad. It ain't yours, so you don't get to decide.

                      If you believe that the *owners* of a platform on which you want to express *yourself* do not have the right to decide what and how expression is done on their property, then it shouldn't be an issue for me to come into your house and read pornography aloud while I masturbate furiously.

                      What's that? *You* decide who can come onto your property? *You* decide what they can do and say there? Yet you claim that you should be able to dictate to others what you do and say on *their* property?

                      It's either you get control of your property and other folks do too, or no one does. Let me know what you think.

                      I'll be by later. Maybe I'll bring some hookers too. I'm sure your family will be properly amused.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @08:13PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @08:13PM (#1001853)

                      If I want to put a sliding glass door in my house, I have to get a permit from the town,

                      I'm curious. While you may need a permit to perform construction (which is not unusual, especially in a big city like New York), you shouldn't need permission to add a sliding glass door [nyc.gov] as long as construction methods meet code and don't compromise the structural integrity of the building. I suppose there may be additional requirements if you live in a landmark building [nyc.gov].

                      Given that adjacent buildings in Park Slope are generally either in contact with each other or in very close proximity, it seems reasonable to make sure that any construction is up to code and doesn't endanger the buildings nearby.

                      Landmark buildings are another story, since modifications to the facade require approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission. I'm not 100% sure that applies to exterior walls that don't face the street, but that could be true too.

                      Then again, I've been in a number of Park Slope (and others in Brooklyn) brownstones, even some that are landmark buildings, and almost every single one had a sliding glass door out to the backyard.

                      So. What was it you were going on about?

                  • (Score: 2) by slinches on Sunday May 31 2020, @11:56PM (1 child)

                    by slinches (5049) on Sunday May 31 2020, @11:56PM (#1001546)

                    I didn't say anything about preventing anyone from using their platform however they like. They would still be free to censor, delete, down rate, promote or modify content as much as they like. They just don't get the extra privilege of indemnification from the legal consequences of the speech they host if they do.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:39PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:39PM (#1001843)

                      That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like you just want to punish platforms for being mean to your political buddies. We have a fancy term for that kind of behavior, I'm sure you can guess what it is ;)

                      PS: publisher != common carrier

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @11:19PM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @11:19PM (#1000828)

            I get why Trump is outraged, but is free speech really under attack at all? I just can't see it that way.

            We all put forth analogies of how servers create some alternate Tron-like world to elucidate our rights. In this case though, it seems simple enough without it.

            Trump's speech was not suppressed, and the entire unedited content was still available. What became attached, was another form of free speech. If Trump is free to say something in a venue, then somebody else is free to say something in the exact same venue. Putting aside the fact these are privately owned areas that arguably function as public meeting spaces, Trump's free speech right is exactly the same as any other citizen. Heheh, Citizens United says a corporation is a person, so Twitter has just as much of a right to speak as Trump.

            What happened?

            1. Trump spoke
            2. Twitter spoke
            3. Trump butthurt about what Twitter spoke
            4. Trump complains that Twitter is stopping him from speaking
            5. Whole time everyone is free to hear what both parties are saying without modifications

            If we absolutely need the analogy, Trump was on a soapbox and delivered a speech. Afterwards, Twitter started handing out pamphlets detailing Trump's statements, and presenting factual evidence that Trump's statements were incorrect, incomplete, or in some other way false.

            Sure Trump can be pissed. Somebody spoke up and called him a liar in his mind, of course he is going to go into attack mode. We all have just as much right to immediately speak out as well, and since this isn't an ad hominem rebuttal from Twitter, but an attachment of official findings of fact, Trump can go shove it up his butt-hole.

            That is, if Dear Leader, in fact possesses a butt-hole. I've heard rumors he does not, and is the product of a World War II top secret project to weaponize radioactive butt-holes by stretching them out about 6 feet and slapping on a really long tie to distract people

            Ohhh, how is Twitter fact checking his ass any different than the inordinate number of articles each day that flat out call him a liar and then proceed to give facts instead? Is the "Amazon Washington Post" interfering with his free speech in the rose garden when it publishes a detailed article of just how full of shit Trump was?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:06AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:06AM (#1000840)

              Because Twitter has an air of authority and it isn't some random person Trump can attack as easily. He can't have that and sees it as an unfair abuse of power. The irony just drips from this whole shitshow.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:22AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:22AM (#1000845)

                #JusticeForCarolyn

              • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:31AM (1 child)

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:31AM (#1000917) Journal

                Because Twitter has an air of authority...

                Remember when the President of the United States of America had an air of authority?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:59AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:59AM (#1000974)

                  You mean Obama? Who used that charisma to murder a US citizen without a trial? Or continued the use of torture, and wasteful foreign wars?

                  I mean I appreciate your comment, Trump is the worst thing since Wonder Bread, but Trump being a piece of human garbage who is the worst president since . . . ever? But an "air of authority" does not excuse betraying every promise made and the constitution itself, along with continuing the blatant abuses of human rights that is the US government's anti-terrorist actions.

                  We are in 60+ years of creeping fascism, and while the focus right now is removing the near-literal nazi fascist we must not forget the larger picture.

            • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:35AM (3 children)

              by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:35AM (#1000852)

              Trump tweeted last year about how the "fake media" does not employ fact checkers any more, but just make stuff up.

              Just in case anyone needed another example of his hypocrisy.

              • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:27AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:27AM (#1000872)

                You're comparing apples to oranges. I couldn't help myself there.

                But seriously, Trump as a writer is not the same as Twitter hosting/publishing and fact-checkers. Of course, if the fact-checkers find him inaccurate, he'll deride them.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:24AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:24AM (#1000938)

                  https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeForCarolyn?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [twitter.com]
                  #JusticeForCarolyn How hard can it be?

                • (Score: 2) by Aegis on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:32AM

                  by Aegis (6714) on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:32AM (#1000970)

                  f the fact-checkers find him inaccurate, he'll deride them.

                  And then he'll use the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to punish them, in flagrant disregard to the Constitution...

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:24AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:24AM (#1000871)

              There's no such thing as "free speech". Once precedent was set, like yelling "fire" in a theater, or "hate speech", it's all a matter of where the censorship line is drawn.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:28AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:28AM (#1000940)

                Fuch you, you ferkining Nazi equator of free speech with the advocation of genocide! We will kill all of you, without hate, without prejudice or bias. We just feel sorry for how fricking stupid you are. You are the inferior race, which is why you cannot get a date, or a job, or even hold a rational discussion.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @05:37PM (11 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:37PM (#1000640) Journal

          The cable networks are their owners speaking to you. Twatter and Facefuck's content are the masses trying to communicate with the masses.

          And where in the First Amendment does it say that difference matters?

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:23PM (9 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:23PM (#1000672)

            Because there's a question of where one's rights ends and another's begins. Marsh vs Alabama [wikipedia.org] is one case everybody should be familiar with because it's going to be popping up a lot over the next few years and it tackled this exact question. Cliff notes: company built a private 'town' of sorts where they owned everything and allowed people access to their private property. One day a Jehova's Witness was distributing fliers on the street. Company didn't want this, told them to leave. They refused. Cops were called, and the person was arrested and charged with trespass. This case made its way to the Supreme Court where it was struck down. They ruled that the more an entity opens themselves to the public, the more the rights of that entity become constrained by the rights, including the first amendment, of those they invite in.

            This case has been gathering dust balls for a while since company towns ceased to exist in relatively short order, but now we're recreating this exact scenario in the digital world. You now have companies that are difficult, if not impossible, to compete against claiming ownership the online dialog of what at the extreme (Facebook) amounts to about 1/3rd of our entire species. It's going to be the job of the courts to determine where and what point an entity transitions from a private to a defacto public one, but there's no doubt that a company like Facebook is way way beyond whatever that point will be determined to be.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:44PM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:44PM (#1000685)

              That is not the same situation. A town is geographically limited, there were no other public space options available. Twitter is just one service and being banned from there does not prevent someone from publishing their opinions online.

              False equivalence for the lose.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:56PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:56PM (#1000688)

                If it _was_ the same situation it would be settled. Of course it's not the same situation. Arguing a false equivalence essentially boils down to you don't think the situation is close enough. But maybe it is. It's a question of how close the situations are and I don't think there was proof enough to say they have nothing in common to the point that the same principle might come into play.

              • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @07:47PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @07:47PM (#1000710)

                What do you mean? There were literally thousands of other cities where they could share their pamphlets, they could have even shared them outside the company's territory. For instance there were connecting neighborhoods and other areas that were not owned by the company.

                This case is near identical in nature. Because the issue comes down to meaningfulness. They obviously wanted to distribute on the company's property because the company controlled the central districts or prime areas. The company wanted the best of both worlds in being able to act like a public platform, yet being able to, at its discretion, swap faces back to declaring itself a private entity to effectively restrict the constitutional protections of its residents at its sole discretion.

                This case is probably an even more clear example because while there are thousands of other cities and so on, in this case there are a strictly limited number of sites with an outsized share of control of all online discourse. And due to the nature of critical mass, it's probably quite literally impossible to meaningfully compete against these sites at this point. So the argument people can just go elsewhere is, at best, very weak.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:09AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:09AM (#1000842)

                  Meatspace != cyberspace

                  Besides, the situation itself isn't even analogous. It would be the same if the company town had set up another representative next to the lady to hand out pamphlets about science and education.

                  Now they did censor Trump's re-tweet of the death threat against Democrats, but that is not protected speech and they didn't ban Trump's account.

                  Watching you conservatives flip out over nothing is just too precious.

                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:14PM (2 children)

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:14PM (#1001340) Journal

                    Watching you conservatives flip out over nothing is just too precious.

                    That's an interesting take on how people should react when they feel their rights are being violated: they're flipping out over nothing.

                    Do you feel that way also about the protestors flipping out over George Floyd's death? His rights were violated, but the protestors' weren't. What are they so upset about, right?

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
                    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @03:59PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @03:59PM (#1001394)

                      No, I consider Twitter moderating their own platform to be completely legal and in line with the constitution. I may not like how Twitter or Facebook runs their services, but I'm not a moron like you who thinks it is a broach of anyone's freedoms. Well, except for selling people's personal data, but we don't yet have strong data privacy laws yet.

                      Didn't think you would sink so low, you really did become a true blue Trumpette.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @08:44PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @08:44PM (#1001494)

                      I don't think you'll find anyone who condones the rioters, but at least they were spurred by murder and not a child's nonsensical temper tantrum.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @09:49PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @09:49PM (#1000793)

              I remember a time when good (northern) democrats were very knowledgable about private entities stifling people's lives.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:50AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:50AM (#1000972)

                Sure, but we'd never consider abusing constitutional rights. You can be mad about something yet realize there is nothing you should do about it.

                Kinda like those KKK nazi fuckheads who promote violence against a good % of humanity yet support their right to say their piece. Yet here you are defending fascism by the government to breach twitter's freedom of speech while trying to disguise it as a defense of freedom. You are so twisted that your only defense is to falsely attack your fellow citizens who are actually looking out for your best interests.

                But OKAY. Be stupid. I will laugh my ass off as you assholes get banned from every online space as the legal liabilities you are.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:04AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:04AM (#1000836)

            The difference actually draws social media platforms deeper into first amendment territory. They are in a defacto position of having the ability to censor, curtail and prohibit not only public free speech but also the ability to petition the government. More fundamentally, their operation is regulated and protected by US law, and through their privatisation of the public sphere, the government can easily outsource first amendment violations to them unless their unilateral control of that sphere is regulated.

            Nearly every US citizen has a social media account. Calling these servers wholly private, of considering only the first amendment rights of the companies will only invite abuse and trouble in future. In a sense, this out one was inevitable as network monopoly effecs set in. It just happens to be about the current administration.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Friday May 29 2020, @03:12PM (24 children)

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday May 29 2020, @03:12PM (#1000559)

        > the government can make no law abridging what any of us write

        I think the GP's point is that while the US government can "make no law abridging what USians write" Twittit et al *absolutely* can. Given that Friendface et al are "the internet" for many people, this gives them the opportunity to censor. One end point for all this is that Twatter gets treated as some sort of "common carrier" in the US and cannot make edits to the posts. Another end point is that Friendit is forced to provide an API enabling others to host Friendface comments etc in some decentralised way. Another end point is that the US govt takes control of Twatface and censors as they see fit.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @03:56PM (20 children)

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2020, @03:56PM (#1000573)

          I think the GP's point is that while the US government can "make no law abridging what USians write" Twittit et al *absolutely* can.

          Twittit can censor what you say on Twittit. They cannot pass a law abridging anything, because they aren't the government. And that leads to 3 key differences between government violations of the First Amendment and private censorship:
          1. Twittit can't put you in jail or send guys with guns to kill you for what you said. And I mean actual physical prison, not "Twittit jail".
          2. What you can't say on Twittit, you can say somewhere else. For instance, the president could post his rants on 8chan if he wanted to even if Twittit didn't allow him to.
          3. The First Amendment guarantees you the right to speak and write. It does not guarantee you the use of any particular forum to speak or write, e.g. you can't just grab the DJ's microphone in a club and start ranting. It does not require that the newspaper print your letter to the editor. It does not require that Nature publish your academic paper. It does not require that your interview with a TV reporter to be broadcast in full.
          4. And if you're going to bring up the economic impacts of Twittit's rules: The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you a right to not to be fired for things you've said either, and if you don't believe me then tell your boss or a key customer to go fuck themselves and see what happens.

          And all this was over an action taken by a social media company that wasn't actually censorship, just embarrassing for the president, and the right to embarrass politicians is one of the key reasons the First Amendment exists.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday May 29 2020, @04:22PM (3 children)

            by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday May 29 2020, @04:22PM (#1000592)

            Good points, all of them. I guess where one may take issue is here:

            > 2. What you can't say on Twittit, you can say somewhere else.

            That's true, so long as other equivalent forums exist. E.g. if the Washington Post doesn't like my letter I can take it to the New York Times. If there is no reasonable competitor to Twittit, then that doesn't apply. Hmm, sounds pretty weak as an argument though.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @05:34PM (2 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:34PM (#1000636)

              That's true, so long as other equivalent forums exist.

              For instance, let's say that my town, like many places in America, has exactly one newspaper covering local affairs and no radio or TV local news coverage to speak of, and it's 1985 so there's not widespread Internet access. And I send in a letter-to-the-editor falsely that one of the town aldermen murdered my puppy, even though a reporter looked into it and discovered I never even owned a puppy. According to your theory, that newspaper would be required to publish my letter, because there's no alternative equivalent forum.

              Which isn't actually how that works: If the newspaper declines to publish my letter, that's their choice to make, and if I want to continue claiming that an alderman murdered my non-existent puppy I'm going to have to find another way of doing so, such as printing up fliers and handing or mailing them out (and of course the alderman might well be able to sue me for libel over all this).

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:17PM (1 child)

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:17PM (#1001341) Journal

                The newspaper is a publisher and is liable for their content. Social media has sheltered under common carrier status so that they're not liable for what people say on their platforms. Now they're trying to behave like publishers without having to do the work of vetting and verifying that publishers do. In other words, they are trying to have it both ways.

                They don't get to have it both ways.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @04:04PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @04:04PM (#1001397)

                  You should try reading the laws if you want to make such proclamations. Twitter is not a common carrier, they are an online publisher and 230c was created to protect such platforms from users who post garbage on their platform since it was recognized that internet publishers can't really have the same level of content control. Well, they could, but it would effectively shut down most sites since. Or at least no more AC posting and users would get banned much more easily.

                  Looks like that is the end result you truly don't comprehend, take away 230c protections and you'll see censorship spike way upwards. Womp womp :/

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Friday May 29 2020, @04:28PM (6 children)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday May 29 2020, @04:28PM (#1000595) Journal

            What you can't say on Twittit, you can say somewhere else. For instance, the president could post his rants on 8chan if he wanted to even if Twittit didn't allow him to.

            Here's the thing. The whole "de facto Public Square" issue is that on Facebook or Twitter, the public actually congregates. On 8chan, no.

            Facebook, Twitter et al. can reasonably be compared to the (national) square. 8chan is more like a dirty, dark spot under a bridge the general public carefully avoids if they even know about it.

            Not that 8chan should not be required to allow all legal speech, they absolutely should; but you can't reasonably compare the public square 8chan provides to the public at large with that provided by Twitter and Facebook.

            The difference, which I would hope is obvious, is in the adoption by the public as a place to be, to go, to regularly seek out news, information and opinion, and to disseminate same.

            The bottom line is if the restriction is "you may not speak on Twitter", and/or "you may not speak on Facebook" then the restriction is effectively "you may not speak in the public square."

            Also, when you say "go to 8chan" (or Soylent), that's like saying "you can't speak here in New York NY, but hey, go on down to Mobile AL and have at it. See? You can speak in the public square!"

            ...which really doesn't reflect a reasonable position.

            If you don't want to speak in some particular public square, of course that's fine. But as soon as they start saying "these people are okay, but these people are not", we have a legitimate free speech problem.

            Presently, the distinction between commercial entities and government entities somewhat opens the door for this kind of thing; but as other have mentioned, we have taken steps to remedy these issues before. You can't say "people of the sort [FITB] cannot use the telephone"; it's not sufficient to say "well, but they can use a telegraph, so it's okay." From this came the common carrier restrictions.

            That's the crux of the issue: How similar are Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and entities of a similar nature to speech channels that, if choked off for some, are effectively a muzzling of the person?

            What if your family didn't have a telegraph, only a phone, and you were forbidden to use any phone by the phone company? Is that reasonable?

            So now, what if your entire family was on Facebook and you were forbidden to interact with, or even visit, them there?

            --
            Democracy: Where any two idiots outvote a genius.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:38PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:38PM (#1000641)

              So at what point was anyone discriminated against due to their personal politics? Please enlighten us since that is the crux of your argument, and this requires actual facts not hearsay and accusations.

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:27PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:27PM (#1000678)

                This is the departure point from conservatism to fascism, where it turns anti-conservative while remaining anti-liberal and anti-socialist.

              • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:04PM

                by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:04PM (#1001140) Journal

                So at what point was anyone discriminated against due to their personal politics? Please enlighten us since that is the crux of your argument

                No, that's not the crux of what I'm saying at all.

                You think women are discriminated against because of politics?

                You think blacks are discriminated against because of politics?

                You think jews are discriminated against because of politics?

                You think polygamists are discriminated against because of politics?

                You think LGBTQ folk are discriminated against because of politics?

                Etc. etc.

                And of course there are myriad examples of this. You can find them everywhere from employers, to any club, towns and cities, to legislation, to Facebook's TOS and so on basically forever.

                Of course politics isn't why; politics can arise from the reasons, but that's very much a secondary effect. Discrimination, as a first cause, arises because there are huge numbers of repressive, small-minded assholes in the world, and those particular types of assholes love to play my clique / your clique with a huge dose of "fuck you, you're not my problem" to season.

                Discrimination in re speech, membership, attendance, jobs, etc., wears many, many ugly hats. And it's almost always entirely a bad thing. This is why I am against it. It's a fucking tremendously bad idea. Proponents of it are the lowest form of (supposedly) intelligent life on earth. But they should still be allowed to speak, attend, etc. 😊

                --
                Every once in a while declare peace. It confuses your enemies.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @05:53PM (2 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:53PM (#1000654)

              Private spaces generally don't get free speech protections, and never have. And not for lack of trying. As an offline example of this, back in the 1990's some activist types I knew walked into the local shopping mall and started handing out fliers about how one of the stores was selling products made with sweatshop labor. In less than an hour, they were all under arrest for trespassing, because the mall is a private facility and mall management and security demanded that they leave. The courts upheld the arrest and convicted them for trespassing, because they were asked to leave private property and refused to do so, rejecting their First Amendment arguments as well as some other attempted defenses.

              As for why Soylent and 8chan are alternatives to Twitter and Facebook, it's very simple: There's absolutely nothing barring someone who usually pays more attention to Twitter or Facebook from reading your posts on Soylent and 8chan. To argue otherwise would be like saying "Because Channel 8 decided to broadcast a speech, Channel 5 should be legally required to broadcast that same speech, because the speaker has a right to be heard by Channel 5's usual audience too", even though anyone who wants to hear the speech in question can simply choose to tune into Channel 8.

              The First Amendment guarantees you the right to speak. It doesn't guarantee you the right to the audience you want to have.

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:35PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:35PM (#1000743)

                The First Amendment guarantees you the right to speak. It doesn't guarantee you the right to the audience you want to have.

                Your second sentence is the part that many hard-line 1st amendment'ers seem to ignore/forget/overlook.

                You can speak all you want, and say whatever you want.

                But you can't force anyone to have to listen to you speak.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @11:50PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @11:50PM (#1000833)

                I suppose Twitter and Facebook, like the mall, would be considered 'private property open to the public' and, IIRC, such areas have historically seen some degree of controversy in court cases WRT free speech.

          • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2020, @05:46PM (7 children)

            by hemocyanin (186) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:46PM (#1000645) Journal

            We have a Bill of Rights and as a society, we know EXACTLY how to make the BoR mean absolutely nothing. Look at the tatters of the 4A where by defining any information in private 3d party hands as lacking in any expectation of privacy, the government gets where it wants despite the 4A. It's a public/private partnership (though not in the warm fuzzy way politicians like to use that term). This ridiculous public/private dichotomy makes the 4A an illusory right.

            For communications monopolies, we arrive in a world where the 1A is also illusory when we apply that public/private distinction. Worse, if those entities become captured by a political entity -- let's say, just theoretically of course (lol) by the neoliberal wing of the Democrat party -- we get to the same place we got to with the 4A -- government using the gauze veil of private business to violate the BoR.

            It is in no way revolutionary to think of telephone service as a utility, to break up monopolies, to enforce fair distribution of service, to regulate. What is Twitter/Facebook -- it is communication but over the internet, and if we are to be consistent, the "over the internet" part is the meaningless bit, and the communication part is primary. If we look at things that way, the whole public/private thing at some scale of private, is just head game and what needs to happen is some good old Teddy Roosevelt monopoly busting, because as we can see, monopolies never behave in a neutral manner.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @06:42PM (5 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2020, @06:42PM (#1000683)

              So let's say you own a small-town general store, and 25 people show up with signs, walk into the store, and start shouting to anybody who is willing to listen that you regularly engage in sexual activity with goats. Should you or your employees have the legal right to order them out of your store? Under current law, the answer is "yes": They can stand on the sidewalk saying all those same things without getting arrested, but not inside your store.

              I know you want to argue that Facebook and Twitter are identical legally speaking from AT&T back when it was a communications monopoly, but they aren't, because there's minimal cost to taking your speech and your reading audience somewhere else and plenty of other forums to go to.

              I remember when this came up with regards to Alex Jones being booted from one of the social media platforms (I forget which one). And a lot of people were saying "But that's violating his 1st Amendment Rights." But it wasn't, because he didn't have a right to use that platforms' resources to promote his material, Infowars still exists, Alex Jones and his organization are still saying their piece, and anybody who wants to hear what he has to say can do so. If your complaint is "But he's having a harder time finding an audience for his stuff than he used to", that's not protected at all, under the First Amendment.

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
              • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:18PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:18PM (#1000733)

                Do you see the difference between a small town general store and an online site that freely opens its doors to everybody and now is a medium for communication that roughly 1/3rd of our species is actively using?

                Again, a case everybody needs to be familiar with is Marsh vs Alabama [wikipedia.org] because there's roughly a 100% chance it's going to be playing a role in what will likely be a supreme court case within the next few years. Cliff notes: company built a private 'town' of sorts where they owned everything and allowed people access to their private property. One day a Jehova's Witness was distributing fliers on the street. Company didn't want this, told them to leave. They refused. Cops were called, and the person was arrested and charged with trespass. This case made its way to the Supreme Court where it was struck down. They ruled that the more an entity opens themselves to the public, the more the rights of that entity become constrained by the rights, including the first amendment, of those they invite in.

                There's an ambiguity in what separates a company from being a private entity with public users and a company that has become a defacto public entity. And that ambiguity will be up to the courts to decide, but I think it's beyond clear that when you have a sizable chunk of our entire species using some platform as a medium, in many cases a primary medium, of communication between one another - that said company has taken on a very different role in society than a normal commercial business. In many countries millions [qz.com] of Facebook users do not think they use the internet. It's taken on such a role as a medium that many people do not even understand that Facebook is just an internet site. And that's largely because Facebook is no longer just an internet site in practical terms.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @10:16PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @10:16PM (#1001186)

                  You keep saying that but that isn't what they said in Marsh at all. I'm seriously wondering if you read your Wikipedia link. It isn't how much are open to the public that counts. It is what they do that counts. When you act like the government and execute a power traditionally given to the government, you are subject to the same restrictions as the government. I.e., you provide sidewalks, then you are subject to the same restrictions the government would be if they were the ones providing sidewalks instead.

              • (Score: 2) by slinches on Friday May 29 2020, @10:00PM (2 children)

                by slinches (5049) on Friday May 29 2020, @10:00PM (#1000798)

                A more appropriate analogy would be "You own an entire county, with several towns and is home to thousands. Twenty five citizens show up with signs, walk into one of the town general stores, and start shouting to anybody who is willing to listen that you regularly engage in sexual activity with goats. Should you or your employees have the legal right to order them out of your county?"

                The issue is that all of the public spaces on the internet are owned or controlled by private companies. You can't necessarily even host your own site because that relies on domain registrars and search engines for others to access it. So there is no equivalent of the sidewalk for the protesters to go to.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:30AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:30AM (#1000956)

                  The issue is that all of the public spaces on the internet are owned or controlled by private companies.

                  Since they are owned/controlled by private companies, they are *not* public spaces, any more than a mall, a restaurant or private club are.

                  You can't necessarily even host your own site because that relies on domain registrars and search engines for others to access it. So there is no equivalent of the sidewalk for the protesters to go to.

                  That's irrelevant. The First Amendment guarantees that the *government* can't (within limits -- the 1A is *not* unlimited) restrict your speech or punish you for speaking.

                  The First Amendment does *not* place those restrictions on private entities.

                  You are guaranteed protection *from the government*, no one else is bound by that stricture.

                  tl;dr: You can speak your piece, but no private entity is required to use *their* resources to help you distribute that speech.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @09:03AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @09:03AM (#1000975)

                    They are having massive problems understanding reality, dunno if that will be an effective tactic.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @07:15PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 29 2020, @07:15PM (#1000693) Journal

              For communications monopolies,

              Oh yeah, such a monopoly. I don't even have an account. Do you?

              And of course, there are zero other websites where we can post our comments to!

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:37PM (#1000746)

            Twittit can censor what you say on Twittit. They cannot pass a law abridging anything, because they aren't the government.

            Twitter is the Saudi government [mideast-times.com], the Qatari government [thefederalist.com], the United Nations global government [unaoc.org], supported by an Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at The White House [harvard.edu] who works at the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center [wsws.org] under the Director of National Intelligence. It is not just "the government", it is several of them and their black ops divisions that don't need to pass a law to fuck you up.

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday May 29 2020, @11:32PM (2 children)

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday May 29 2020, @11:32PM (#1000831)

          Given that Friendface et al are "the internet" for many people, this gives them the opportunity to censor.

          Maybe the focus then shouldn't be on attacking Facebook or Twitter or such, but on the education of users so they know what the internet is and how to actually use their technology. Maybe a lot of the "user friendliness" of the technology should be eliminated. Allow (require?) users to select and install their own O/S, instead of getting an OEM install with preselected gateways to commercial software that hide as much of the function as possible. You know, something like Linux or BSD?

          • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:53AM (1 child)

            by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:53AM (#1000961)

            Remember that "the OS" is irrelevant to most people these days: on the desktop everything's done through the browser, and on mobile devices it's all in the app.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday June 13 2020, @04:02AM

              by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Saturday June 13 2020, @04:02AM (#1007294)

              Remember that "the OS" is irrelevant to most people these days: on the desktop everything's done through the browser, and on mobile devices it's all in the app.

              This is the problem. Ever since Microsoft obfuscated things like "My Documents" from the actual path, things have gone down hill. The average user is now clueless about how things work on their devices and they are clueless about what their devices are doing at any given moment.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @04:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @04:21PM (#1000590)

        Yet those orgs are not under the DMCA act now are they. These companies want their cake and eat it too. Basically they want impunity to say whatever they like and endorse whomever they like. Then enforce that upon their users.

        But lets not pretend here that these companies are the bastions of 'good vs evil'. Nancy Pelosi put it perfectly the other day. "they just want tax breaks" She would know she is probably their first stop to get them. They are druming up division upon us because it sells. Facebook just got outed this week with their own internal emails saying just that. They seek engagement from you to show you adverts. Yellow journalism does exactly that. If it didnt the enquirer and buzzfeed would not be a thing.

        They want to be a news org that does 'fact checking'. Then that is a whole different ball game. One that has a decent amount of case law in how they can and can not act. They are hiding behind the DMCA to take potshots at people then saying 'oh no we didnt reallllly do that we are the good guys'. They lie to our faces every day. Don't think so? Number 3 will amaze you.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @04:46PM (7 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 29 2020, @04:46PM (#1000601) Journal

        Conservatives love government censorship now.

        Look how quickly all those lofty claims about freedom of speech fly right out the window.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Friday May 29 2020, @08:31PM (4 children)

          by Bot (3902) on Friday May 29 2020, @08:31PM (#1000739) Journal

          Who is censoring and who wants to be uncensored, again?
          Trump is still Berlusconi II, but man, do progressives suffer from cognitive dissonance.

          Tell me what I did not get right: Twitter FB and Reddit have the habit of being intolerant towards the fascist intolerants. (there is a problem in them being the supreme jury in deciding who is fascist and why but let us not digress). Trump does not like the debunker tag next to his post and orders a review of a strange directive that lifts responsibility from the consequence of censorship.

          So, I repeat, who is censoring and who wants to be uncensored, again?

          Uh and I retire what I just said about trump. I don't have to justify myself, to sound objective. It is YOU who have to prove you are objective, in light of your obvious inversion. Come on enlight us how freedom is slavery.

          --
          Account abandoned.
          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:59AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:59AM (#1000886)

            "Tell me what I did not get right"

            Everything

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:35AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:35AM (#1000942)

              Poor Bot! Poor khallow! But just fuck VLM! These are the Dunning-Koegers of our lives, the ones so stupid that they cannot be aware of how stupid they are. And so, as several have advocated, arguing with them is useless.

              But I, for one, hold out hope. I think, if we shame and humiliate them enough, they just might turn. Foucault had an issue with how when you are dealing with crazy people, you have to put it in the terms they thing in. So some crazy people believed they were dead, and so ceased eating. So all we have to do is show them pictures, say from Caspar the Freudliche Geist, where the dead do eat, and there madness might be circumvented. So we need the same for these recalcitrant "conservatives", presenting the real world in fantasy terms they will understand. Khallow! Squirrel!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:37PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:37PM (#1001021)

                "So some crazy people believed they were dead, and so ceased eating. So all we have to do is show them pictures, say from Caspar the Freudliche Geist, where the dead do eat, and there madness might be circumvented. So we need the same for these recalcitrant "conservatives", presenting the real world in fantasy terms they will understand."

                Or, we could just let them die like the fools that they are. Don't forget that is an option too.

                • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday May 31 2020, @10:21AM

                  by Bot (3902) on Sunday May 31 2020, @10:21AM (#1001312) Journal

                  > we could just let them die like the fools that they are

                  LOL you failed the progressive test. Progs are the guardians of the truth, so it's not allowable to let other people choose other behaviours and OBSERVE which group ends up better.

                  The truth: Vaccines save. (this is as retarted as saying "eating nourishes" while feeding you dirt, but let's not digress)
                  Enter AC: "we could just let the unvaxxed die like the fools that they are" wat? NO FUCKING WAY.

                  They must get vaxxed else vaccines do not work, because vaccines do work. Get it? No? I have bad news for you, after the dictatorship deals with the outspoken opposition, the reasonable one are usually the next target.

                  --
                  Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Friday May 29 2020, @10:18PM (1 child)

          by slinches (5049) on Friday May 29 2020, @10:18PM (#1000809)

          So ... removing common carrier protections from media companies that have editorial control of their content is censorship now?

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:24AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:24AM (#1000846)

            *sigh*

            Preventing twitter from making their own commentary is censorship.

            Also, they are not a common carrier, they are a publisher.

            Definitions below for you. Section 230 protects internet companies from being liable for their user's content while granting them the right to remove content as needed. This is to deal with the new reality of the internet where users of a service can publish content without editorial review. Standard print/video publishers have way more control over their content which is why they can be held liable for defamation.

            A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier)[2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[3] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.

            A common carrier (also called a public carrier in British English)[3] is distinguished from a contract carrier, which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity." A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules, and rate tables upon the approval of regulators. Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers,[4] cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. Under US law, an ocean freight forwarder cannot act as a common carrier.[3]

            and then publisher

            Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free.[1] Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works, such as books, newspapers, and magazines. With the advent of digital information systems, the scope has expanded to include electronic publishing such as ebooks, academic journals, micropublishing, websites, blogs, video game publishing, and the like.

            Publishing may produce private, club, commons or public goods and may be conducted as a commercial, public, social or community activity.

            legal liability for publishers

            Publication is the distribution of copies or content to the public.[32][33] The Berne Convention requires that this can only be done with the consent of the copyright holder, which is initially always the author.[32] In the Universal Copyright Convention, "publication" is defined in article VI as "the reproduction in tangible form and the general distribution to the public of copies of a work from which it can be read or otherwise visually perceived."[33]

            In providing a work to the general public, the publisher takes responsibility for the publication in a way that a mere printer or a shopkeeper does not. For example, publishers may face charges of defamation, if they produce and distribute libelous material to the public, even if the libel was written by another person.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2020, @05:16PM (36 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:16PM (#1000626) Journal

        Everyone keeps getting caught up in the 1A. Nobody is suggesting limiting 1A rights. The issue is whether the liability carveout of section 230 of the CDA which applies to neutral to service providers, should continue to apply when they stop being mere providers and engage in editorializing behavior.

        So Twitter is totally free say flag Trump with "orange man bad" tags. The only change would be that if they did something defamatory for example, they could be sued whereas right now, the CDA prevents such action.

        Basically what Twitter, Google etc. want, is the ability to be publishers without the normal liability that comes with publishing falsehoods -- not that there is much such liability (evidence, NYT and the Iraq war) -- but sometimes the publishers do get snagged (evidence, CNN and the Covington Kids).

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @05:39PM (32 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:39PM (#1000642) Journal

          The Federal Government is prohibited from retaliating against people for criticizing the government by the First Ammendment.

          This is flagrantly clear retaliation we're witnessing...

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2020, @05:49PM (31 children)

            by hemocyanin (186) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:49PM (#1000649) Journal

            You are being intentionally obtuse.

            Twitter wants the immunity service providers get and publishers don't, while being a publisher. THAT immunity is by mere statute, not the Constitution.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @05:55PM (30 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 29 2020, @05:55PM (#1000656) Journal

              They want the same immunity all sites with a forum have.

              And you expect us to believe the timing of this executive order is just a coincidence?

              Also, remember when executive orders where the spawn of Satan?

              • (Score: 1, Redundant) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2020, @06:14PM (29 children)

                by hemocyanin (186) on Friday May 29 2020, @06:14PM (#1000666) Journal

                Of course it isn't coincidence -- it's a reaction. Why would you think I think it is a coincidence?

                To the broader point though, SN doesn't editorialize any posts with a "well actually ..." tag. There is a fundamental difference between responding to a post, which twitter could do as a normal user, and editorializing a post, which twitter is doing as an authoritative overlord exercising a power nobody else has.

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:42PM (19 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:42PM (#1000684)

                  So SN admins/editors "correcting" moderations by the users is not "authoritative overlord exercising a power nobody else has"? What about banning IPs for posts they deem goes against their Code of Conduct?

                  Critical thinking really isn't the conservative strong suit, and it really gets tiring having to explain things just because conservatives are happy to ignore reality when it suits them. There is no civil discourse that can occur when you are willing to make exceptions when it suits you.

                  What is truly galling is how easily you conservatives flip-flop from protesting and supporting fascism. When it suits you freedom of speech is absolute, but when inconvenient you claim government over reach. You have no ideals, you have only tribalism that morphs your ideals into whatever supports the tribe at the moment in time. You are fools being led cheering into fascism and no amount of logic, reason, or discussion seems capable of penetrating that partisan loyalty.

                  • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @07:17PM (11 children)

                    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 29 2020, @07:17PM (#1000695) Journal

                    Conservative logic in a nutshell:

                    If I do it, it's fine.
                    If someone else does it, and I disagree with it, it's TYRANNY!

                    • (Score: 2, Touché) by slinches on Friday May 29 2020, @10:46PM (8 children)

                      by slinches (5049) on Friday May 29 2020, @10:46PM (#1000821)

                      Liberal/Progressive logic in a nutshell:

                      If I do it, it's fine.
                      If someone else does it, and I disagree with it, it's FASCIST!

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:37AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:37AM (#1000854)

                        Uh oh, your brain is leaking again :(

                        https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fascist [thesaurus.com]

                        One guess what one of the synonyms is.

                      • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:08AM (6 children)

                        by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:08AM (#1000877) Journal

                        It's funny that slinches' post is modded troll, but the one above is modded way up.

                        GWB: due process free detention based on secret legal memos: https://youtu.be/DlhGFyOfgLk?t=31 [youtu.be]
                        Obama: due process free execution based on secret legal memos: *crickets*

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:04AM (5 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:04AM (#1000888)

                          Obama: due process free execution based on secret legal memos: *crickets*

                          Incorrect, I myself have brought up Obama's failures and fascist bullshit many times myself. As usual we liberals are the ones who are objective and willing to compromise. Conservatives, and ex-liberals apparently, are the ones who refuse to compromise or acknowledge objective reality.

                          GoT iT ThAaAaAAnKS!

                          • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:44AM

                            by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:44AM (#1000960) Journal

                            Yeah -- but you aren't the legacy media

                          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:28PM (3 children)

                            by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:28PM (#1001344) Journal

                            As usual we liberals are the ones who are objective and willing to compromise. Conservatives, and ex-liberals apparently, are the ones who refuse to compromise or acknowledge objective reality.

                            These days it seems to me that "liberals" (to my mind they are no such) are the ones who refuse to compromise or acknowledge objective reality. 99.9999% of humanity thinks it's female or male, but "liberals" cite those 0.0001% who have gender dysphoria as "evidence" that gender is all in the mind and not biological at all.

                            "Liberals" like the ones in TFA are the ones who are censoring speech they don't like, but somehow that makes them "willing to compromise?" Somehow it doesn't make them fascist?

                            If you don't like what a man has to say, then answer him. But never censor him. Let him have his say, and if his words have merit then they'll remain, and if they don't, they will be forgotten.

                            --
                            Washington DC delenda est.
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @04:08PM (2 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @04:08PM (#1001400)

                              Ok dude, provide some citatio s of such censorship if you want to be considered.

                              • (Score: 2, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 01 2020, @02:56PM (1 child)

                                by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday June 01 2020, @02:56PM (#1001710) Journal

                                Trump was just censored on twitter.

                                --
                                Washington DC delenda est.
                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:50PM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:50PM (#1001849)

                                  Yeah, for promoting violence and death. Even the 1st Amendment has exceptions, and if you believe Trump's death threat re-tweet should be "debated" then you are a fucking slimeball.

                                  Now, go find some examples of censorship that are unjust. I can't believe I have to add such a qualifier, but here we are.

                    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:06AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:06AM (#1000928)

                      Not so long ago liberals were preaching "TOLERANCE!" Then it kind of bit them in the ass, so we don't hear it from them anymore.

                      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @09:14AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @09:14AM (#1000977)

                        Not calling for actual censorship of Trump's lies is tolerance. Not being outraged that twitter appended a link to less biased information is not intolerance.

                        As for tolerance, there are also limits. Such as spewing lies and dangerous information that puts the lives of citizens at risk. Why should we have tolerance for greedy sociopaths who harm others? We're not stupid, and trying to play our good will against us shows us your own depravity.

                  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 29 2020, @08:42PM (1 child)

                    by Bot (3902) on Friday May 29 2020, @08:42PM (#1000749) Journal

                    If you are for freedom of speech you support trump removing a free pass for twitter to censor whatever without fallout. You can keep hating him at the same time, or imagining he does it for awful plays with the justice system but these have yet to materialize. BTW all scandals involving judges here in Italy see them in bed together with mafia, masons, and leftists. When they will gang up with conservative christians righties, let me know.

                    --
                    Account abandoned.
                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @09:23PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @09:23PM (#1000776)

                      Nope, I have never in my life felt like someone else should be forced to host my speech against their wishes. Twitter does not fall under the realm of public utility the way phone companies and ISPs do because anyone can set up their own server to publish their own speech.

                      "mafia, masons, and leftists"

                      You're such a douche bag. Conservatives have been dumping on everyone else since forever, trying to enforce your religious nuttery on others, and now you're crying crocodile tears over the possibility of being persecuted back? Until you are actually persecuted I don't give a fuck. Get lost rightwing nutjob.

                  • (Score: 2) by slinches on Friday May 29 2020, @10:36PM (1 child)

                    by slinches (5049) on Friday May 29 2020, @10:36PM (#1000818)

                    If they are correcting moderations at the behest of the moderator, then that is not acting as an "authoritative overlord" or considered even an editorial action. Neither is removing content that they are required to remove by law. As far as I'm aware, these are the only changes to posts that have been made on this site. Please enlighten me if there are examples where such powers were abused to modify content, reduce the visibility of or alter context of comments that the administrators just didn't like.

                    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:01PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:01PM (#1001094)

                      As far as I'm aware, these are the only changes to posts that have been made on this site.

                      Not really paying attention, then? Typical semi-conscious conservative.

                  • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:14AM (1 child)

                    by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:14AM (#1000878) Journal

                    I'm not a conservative, I'm just not a Democrat.

                    You too are being obtuse by intentionally failing to understand the difference between service providers and publishers. A publisher with a comment section may have 230 immunity for the comments, but not for their publishing content. Twitter slapping "fact check" tags is an act of editorializing. If they want to avoid the liability publications have, they need to act like a service provider.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2020, @07:35PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2020, @07:35PM (#1002298)

                      Twitter can take heat for their own publications, such as the fact checking links.

                      If they modify someone else's post then they shoudl take the heat for that.

                      So far all they've done is post a reply to Trump and hide (not even remove) his tweet inciting violence.

                      There is no trouble here, just you being outraged that Twitter added some links on the same page as Trump's post. Super crazy stuff right there /s

                  • (Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:39AM

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:39AM (#1000943) Journal

                    So SN admins/editors "correcting" moderations by the users is not "authoritative overlord exercising a power nobody else has"? What about banning IPs for posts they [think paint with too broad a brush]

                    Oh, that would never happen, except it does all the time? All right there in the IRC logs. Criminal activity, Mod banning. IP blocking. #Freearistarchus!!!!

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:16PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:16PM (#1000730)

                  Of course it isn't coincidence -- it's a reaction

                  Exactly. So what part of "the Federal Government is prohibited from retaliating against people for criticizing the government by the First Amendment" did you willfully ignore?

                  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 29 2020, @08:46PM (3 children)

                    by Bot (3902) on Friday May 29 2020, @08:46PM (#1000753) Journal

                    Reaction is not retaliation. Especially when the reaction involves removing a privilege. Does your constitution say everybody is equal under the law too?

                    --
                    Account abandoned.
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @11:16PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @11:16PM (#1000826)

                      Why yes, yes it does. We had some problems early on with the definition of a person was. You might have heard of the 3/5ths compromise. It took a second revolution to set that straight, and this [wikipedia.org] is what we came up with:

                      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @10:03AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @10:03AM (#1000982)

                      Dear GOD you're stupid! But hey, you're a Catholic, very few of those are capable of independent thought.

                      "Get 'em before they're twelve and you've got 'em for life!" Sick fucking priests.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:38AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:38AM (#1000958)

                  There is a fundamental difference between responding to a post, which twitter could do as a normal user, and editorializing a post, which twitter is doing as an authoritative overlord exercising a power nobody else has.

                  Are you arguing that a private entity is not entitled to use its resources as it sees fit?

                  Which is a direct argument *against* property rights.

                  Are you a communist?

                  • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday June 01 2020, @05:17PM (2 children)

                    by hemocyanin (186) on Monday June 01 2020, @05:17PM (#1001792) Journal

                    So what you are saying is that Trump is a lefty and Democrats have become hardcore libertarians.

                    I guess nobody wants to deal with the issue of private companies have inordinate power over the public narrative, but it will end up being dealt with eventually though probably in ways nobody likes or envisions.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:57PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:57PM (#1001850)

                      Are you a communist?

                      So that's a 'yes'?

                      • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 02 2020, @03:13AM

                        by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday June 02 2020, @03:13AM (#1002020) Journal

                        no

                        It is interesting though how politics is quite fluid right now and interesting too how Democrats' "we're the good guys" narrative is slipping away into authoritarianism.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @06:12PM (2 children)

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2020, @06:12PM (#1000665)

          So Twitter is totally free say flag Trump with "orange man bad" tags. The only change would be that if they did something defamatory for example, they could be sued whereas right now, the CDA prevents such action.

          So, let's take this scenario, which is a very real possibility:
          1. Twitter flags the president saying something about his statement the president doesn't like.
          2. The president, as a private citizen, sues them for $10 billion in defamation damages.
          3. Twitter spends $1 million in legal fees in court demonstrating that what they said isn't libel (e.g. it's something they reasonably believed to be true).

          How exactly is that different in effect from the president getting to fine Twitter or any other company he wants to target $1 million for saying things he doesn't like?

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2020, @06:18PM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Friday May 29 2020, @06:18PM (#1000670) Journal

            Clearly that immunity is worth something -- are you saying that when a company intentionally fails to meet the requirements for an immunity law, it should get immunity anyway? What is that -- the new Democrat fascism and we must support bigTech uber alles, even over the rule of law???

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:23PM (#1000736)

            In most civilized countries the head of state is not allowed to sue, for exactly this reason. If the head of state wants to bring it suit, it must be done by the state, like an Attorney General, the Ministry of the Interior, or similar.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:58PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:58PM (#1000657)

        Which means that Twitter, Facebook, et al can do whatever they want on their servers

        When you have a handful of aervices that almost the entire population uses (to the point that alternatives are effectively useless), and you carry out this principle to its fullest, this ultimately results in those in power outsourcing censorship, rather than pushing it with the government.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @06:47PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2020, @06:47PM (#1000686)

          (to the point that alternatives are effectively useless)

          1. Alternatives exist right now.
          2. Anyone who wants to use those alternatives can do so, right now, in many cases free of charge, as both an audience member and a speaker.

          What you mean by "effectively useless" isn't that these systems don't work, but that you want to be able to spread your message where the audience is. Well, sure: Anybody trying to spread a message wants to hit the widest audience possible. And that's no different online versus offline: I'm sure the guy I once saw standing on a street corner licking his Bible and ranting about something or other would much rather be performing his act in a 10,000-seat megachurch, but that doesn't give him the right to barge into Joel Olsteen's services and start preaching.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:44AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:44AM (#1000923)

        Think about the communications decency bullshit. A nipple slip anyone? Some on the air profanity.

        Censorship on broadcast media has been there since the beginning, 1st amendment or no. Now if your content is worded such that nothing in it is considered 'indecent' you might get away with it, but that standard of decency has been oscillating back and forth since broadcast media, or perhaps even printed media began here in the US.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:42AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:42AM (#1000959)

          Censorship on broadcast media has been there since the beginning, 1st amendment or no. Now if your content is worded such that nothing in it is considered 'indecent' you might get away with it, but that standard of decency has been oscillating back and forth since broadcast media, or perhaps even printed media began here in the US.

          Right. Because broadcast media leases *public* spectrum and, as such, are subject to regulation.

          Are the data centers, servers and network links leased or purchased from the public/government? No.

          Private entities are not subject to the First Amendment. Full stop.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @04:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @04:13PM (#1000582)

      I think the POTUS is opening a door he'll wish he hadn't opened later on.

      This is making the highly false assumption of consistency. There is lots of past history of "heads I win, tails you lose." Or put another way, "I get this power, if you take control the power is suddenly corrupt."

      As an example, look at the rhetoric of deficits and deficit spending. It changes dramatically from both sides depending on who is in charge.

      Or another example, look at how when one party lost the governor's race in Wisconsi , as a final act of the departing administration they severely reduced the amount of power the governorship wielded.

      Or look at the rhetoric of "equal time" for news broadcasters.

      Or look at how the debate on "equality of races/genders" has changed to become "affirmative action."

      If anybody thinks the powers that be (especially Trump, but in general) would have any qualms declaring that "we've never been at war with Eurasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia" if it looks like this will start pointing negative to them, I would suggest they are sorely mistaken.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday May 29 2020, @04:13PM (12 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2020, @04:13PM (#1000584) Journal

      So what Trump wants by removing CDA 230 protections is . . .

      If Twitter moderates or fact checks Trump playing with his Tweeter, then Twitter should be legally liable for all lies that Twitter allows Trump, or anyone, to tell.

      If Twitter must (in Trump's fantasy) be legally liable for Trump's lies, this gives Twitter a very large incentive to ban Trump and his followers from the platform. And all other platforms having the same incentive.

      Imagine Fox News being legally liable for any lies they might spread online.

      What about other nutjobs, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and others?

      What about SN? I've read right here in these sacred pages about how it is okay to point a gun at a drone and shoot . . . because! It could be recording something.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:07PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:07PM (#1000619)

        To be fair, it might be illegal, but if someone runs a drone in your yard, it is perfectly OK to shoot the thing down as long as you are prepared for the consequences.

        Personal sore spot. Some a-hole was running his drone in my and my neighbors back yards every morning between 4am and 5am for several weeks. Besides the privacy invasion, those things are LOUD!

        I tried to blast it out of the air with a garden hose.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday May 29 2020, @07:27PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2020, @07:27PM (#1000702) Journal

          If you're going to shoot first, ask questions later, then a garden hose, or high pressure washer, would be preferable. Maybe a sooper soaker. Sling shot.

          Its just amazing how the FIRST reaction is "get the guns!"

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday May 29 2020, @10:01PM (1 child)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday May 29 2020, @10:01PM (#1000799) Journal

          Uh, no. Nowhere I know of is that legally true, and I know of many, many places where it is not. You never own the air above you, and unless you have mineral rights you don't own what's underneath you.

          Had you been successful you almost certainly would have owed the owner the cost of the drone. Because even if the law protected you (and many places offer no privacy protections against drones), that's not the way you are enabled to invoke its protection.

          --
          This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:43AM (#1000946)

            Bola, or boomerang. Just stuff flying through the air, and an unfortunate mid-air collision. Too bad those tiny rotors are so delicate and vulnerable to spagetti fired from a potato cannon!

        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday May 29 2020, @10:05PM (1 child)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday May 29 2020, @10:05PM (#1000802) Journal

          And I read where you said "it might be illegal..." So you are probably trying to claim a moral justification of privacy for that, or perhaps having your peace disturbed. OK, you're morally justified in not allowing it on your property! Congratulations! (We'll just ignore the rights of the drone owner to be able to enjoy their hobby, or the right of a free press to essentially photograph anything that is in open view).

          That does not mean that anything you do is therefore moral. Otherwise... George Floyd. Now be my guest and troll, flamebait, or mod me as such. But that is an equivalent moral argument. And yes, I see the irony in suggesting to you that the most your moral justification allows is to call the police or file a lawsuit. But... let the cops shoot it down and justify themselves, then.

          --
          This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @10:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @10:13PM (#1000807)

            Ceding all rights and power of people to the police is not a proper solution, no master how "civilized" it is. Photographing me from the air is as much your right to free speech as my right to use a telescope to take pictures of you through your bathroom window.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:11PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:11PM (#1000724)

        One where will be sufficient incentive for users to go (to read/agree/argue with Trump), where censorship will be unable to happen (to avoid legal liability for content), and which will be damn hard to "deplatform" (because government servers and government network). Everyone (who isn't a monopoly abuser) wins.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @10:32PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @10:32PM (#1000816)

          Or he can go on the platforms which purport to protect all forms of speech no matter what. Along with the pedophiles and Nazis. And try to build his brand there.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:28AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:28AM (#1000848)

            Does Trump even have an account on Gab?

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:47AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:47AM (#1000859) Journal

              I would love to see him move there. He'd have those drooling, trembling, wild-eyed meth heads ripping each other to shreds in less than 3 days. This is what I believe the children refer to as "epic lulz."

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:19AM (1 child)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:19AM (#1000879) Journal

        I'd say this is accurate. People are so quick to kneejerk to a "I'm want the opposite of what Trump wants" that they end up acting as stupidly. If Twitter became liable for its user's posts, Twitter would really clean house, including Trump. There's the little issue of course that they would have to ban 99% of their users, but the world would be better off with the outrage cancel culture factory Twitter has become.

        As things stand, I am 100% convinced that the next civil war, will start on Facebook and Twitter.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 01 2020, @03:42PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 01 2020, @03:42PM (#1001728) Journal

          People are so quick to kneejerk to a "I'm want the opposite of what Trump wants"

          I do that!

          But I always think about what rules I would want if the shoe were on the other foot.

          What's compatible with the goose is also compatible with the gander without any special adapters or dongle cables.

          I am 100% convinced that the next civil war, will start on Facebook and Twitter.

          Insightful +1

          (Or some on FB and Twitter: Inciteful!)

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:07PM (#1000620)

      Regulated to what extent? That's my question.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday May 29 2020, @09:58PM

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday May 29 2020, @09:58PM (#1000797) Journal

      Misses the point: On almost all such platforms you can find clauses in the TOS that says that once you commit the words to their platform you may still be legally liable for them but the words themselves belong to the platform. That, plus the platform can change anything around them at will, including the words themselves, and you have no say in that. Because you are the product, not the customer.

      And also misses the point: You don't want the platform changing things..... Go open your own. You are free to.

      --
      This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:30AM (#1000850)

      This might actually be a sly dictatorial move.

      Removing 230c protections will mean that no internet service will be able to host anonymous / public users. This will greatly diminish online discussions and make it much easier to control information. False flag operations can get any site taken offline by the federal government. This would also explain Trump's outrageous tweets, he is trying to create a fight so he can cry wolf and pass even more authoritarian laws giving the government more power.

    • (Score: 1) by leon_the_cat on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:08AM (2 children)

      by leon_the_cat (10052) on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:08AM (#1000930) Journal

      I think trump is a great president. Did you know your first sentence is a logical fallacy? You claim to be intelligent and enlightened and yet your reasoning shows none of this. Maybe you should look at the history of the USA as a whole, heed the words of John F Kennedy and realize you have been conned into a yet another religion that has no truth and who's only game is power. But no you HATE trump but do you LOVE big brother?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:53AM (#1000947)

        I think trump is a great president.

        How nice, for you. Do you know your "thinking" is completely fucked?

        Did you know your first sentence is a logical fallacy?

        Um, do you even know what a fallacy is? It is not just saying "No, it isn't" [dailymotion.com]. Your logic has recirculated up your MAGA butt. Pull it out, before you die! This sentence is not a fallacy. You are a victim of TDS. You accuse others of claiming to be enlightened and intelligent, but your gibberish shows not sign of any competency to judge such, since you are lacking yourself. So, go away, you MAGA idiot! Get banned from a store for not wearing a mask! Go to a mass gathering, to "stick it to the libs", and die of corona virus! You can do it! You are not that stupid!!!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @09:17AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @09:17AM (#1000978)

        Oooh, a new user just for this story. Wonder which scum sucking libertaritwat you actually are.

(1) 2 3