Message from @devpav
Discord ID: 490281293519519766
I get into this argument a lot around here so I don't want to get sidetracked. So we'll agree to leave it at this. You think there's going to be a red wave, I think there's going to be a blue one.
I think the GOP will gain at least 3 seats in the Senate.
By any means, the current congress should *really* be looking into this censorship while they still have a chance.
What about the House?
The GOP will hold the House.
I think the GOP will lose the house solidly. Not sure what happens in the Senate.
But again, I think this stuff needs to be taken care of *now*
Regardless of November.
And do vote, I have very strong doubts the Democrats will do anything but frame censorship and destruction of privacy into law.
Anonymity has already been confirmed as a right by the Supreme Court.
...you do know it's usually Republican-nominated judges who limit the rights under 4th, right?
Sure?
Doesn't mean anything about social media.
'Hate speech' has been obliterated by the Supreme Court as a source of legal liability for social media platforms, too.
Remember that whole "unlock the Apple phone" fiasco?
They've said that hate speech isn't a valid restriction on speech from the government point of view, but that does leave it open for private entities.
Anyhow, I'm not doing it. They can lock me up.
Don't give a fuck.
"You don't have a right to the platform" is legally correct (if not morally) until the social media platforms become recognized as a public square or common carrier.
Or as a monopoly.
^
Also, Matal v. Tam is government again.
It's the patent office.
The public/private distinction is an area FIRE has to dance around with alot. It's much easier for them to go after Public Universities than Private ones.
It's 1A jurisprudence regarding 'hate speech'.
Doesn't matter for social media platforms.
Atleast legally.
This is why I think it's so key to recognize very large social media platforms as a public square or something similar.
It means there's no CDA 230 exemption for hate speech.
Grenade found a nice video explaining that CDA 230 is somewhat misunderstood. It allows moderation under some kind of terms.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of it all. The wording of the law would suggest some kind of public square situation and would seem to suggest they have to carry political speech neutrally. But, if so, it hasn't worked out in lawsuits. Prager's lawsuit got dismissed pretty quickly and I'm sure he would have looked into it.
Frankly, very large social media as a public square should have been implemented awhile ago. Require that neutral platforms perform neutral treatment.
The Tech companies pushed Net Neutrality against the Telecoms (who were much better behaved on this issue IMHO). As far as I'm concerned, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
FWIW, Grenade seems to be of the stance CDA 230 should be repealed. I think that might just be counterproductive. But something clearly needs to change.
I'm also interested in looking at this from the angle of social media monopolies using their platforms to fix elections.
I am too. This actually is how Hayes got elected.
(from the guy who termed Net Neutrality--and singled out Google as needing it): https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/excerpt-the-master-switch.html
Actually, @Timcast if you want to make a sensational vid that would get people more than a little riled up, Wu's take in the book is the kind of thing that would get people more than a little on edge. The election of 1876 was always highly contentious (the second election in which the popular vote winner lost--and the only one in which an outright majority of the country was opposed to the winner [the other elections have all had small voter turnouts to where it was only a plurality opposed]) and Wu states the negotiated compromise may have been because of leaked cables from the telegram monopoly.