SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Justice Clarence Thomas suggests US should regulate Twitter and Facebook:
Justice Clarence Thomas suggested on Monday that Congress should consider whether laws should be updated to better regulate social media platforms that, he said, have come to have "unbridled control" over "unprecedented" amounts of speech.
The provocative and controversial opinion comes as Twitter banned former President Donald Trump from its platform for violating its rules on incitement of violence and some conservatives have called on more regulations in the tech world to combat what they view as political bias on social media.
"If part of the problem is private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then part of the solution may be found in doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude, " Thomas wrote in a 12-page concurring opinion Monday.
Thomas's stance will raise concerns from critics who point out that social media platforms have not historically been subject to such content regulation, but instead have been left to devise their policies on their own.
[...] Today's digital platforms, Thomas argued, "provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech," but he said it also concentrates control "of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties."
[...] "The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions," he added.
[...] The conservative justice said that the court will soon have "no choice" but to address how legal doctrines apply to "privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms."
Katie Fallow, a First Amendment expert at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University said that the group actually shares Thomas concern about the power over speech being concentrated in the hands of so few. "But we think that concentrating that same power in the hands of government regulators will not necessarily solve the problems associated with social media companies." Instead, she worried it might exacerbate the issue.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:06PM (4 children)
Heh. Yes it does. The POTUS has never had trouble before reaching the nation, so for Twitter to become a big part of it what it's actually used for matters. If it's all about the candidate, then no, the network effect does not matter. If it's about serving the public then you've got a point I have no immediate issue with. The guy we're talking about insisted on using his personal account so much it raised legal/procedural concerns, like blocking ppl.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:18PM (3 children)
You're barking up a tree without a paddle. The only thing that matters is that what he is doing works. He monopolizes the entirety of mass media, Twitter, TV, the papers, all of it. And it's still working [thedailybeast.com]. Let's not dwell on distractions.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:49PM (2 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:02PM (1 child)
They don't care about the voters. They care about payables and receivables. Only the voters can care about the voters. It's up to them to vote for people that do the same.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:25PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈