Texas passes law that bans kicking people off social media based on ‘viewpoint’


Recommended Posts

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-media-law-hb-20-signed-greg-abbott

 

Quote

 

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a bill regulating how social media companies moderate content.

The new law, passed as HB 20 in early September, controversially prohibits banning (or demonetizing or otherwise restricting) content based on “the viewpoint of the user or another person,” whether or not that viewpoint is expressed on the social media platform itself.

HB 20 also requires social media services to disclose how they promote and moderate content and mandates transparency reports similar to those produced by Facebook, Google, and other major web companies. If platforms are notified of illegal content, the law requires them to evaluate it within 48 hours, a policy that mirrors at least one proposal in US Congress. (Unlike Congress, however, a state legislative body can’t override Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — which governs much moderation of illegal content online.)

 

 

 

Texas: We don't like governments meddling in our affairs

Also Texas: Frak your voting, Women's and 1st Amendment Rights

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
On 11/09/2021 at 05:57, wakjak said:

Good luck upholding this law in court. 

 

The left has long been a big proponent of "Net Neutrality", treating the internet as a public utility regulated by the FCC.  Link...  If the internet is defined a public utility then the First Amendment's free speech rights are in full force; whatever can be said in the public square must be allowed on the internet. The Texas law is therefore consistent with Net Neutrality in this regard.

 

On the other hand, the left has also supported restricting the voices of those opposed to their views. We see it every day on campus and elsewhere, "Wokeism".  This is allowed on social media because of an anti-free speech carve-out lobbied into existence by Big Tech to prevent them from being sued for what posters say; 47 U.S. Code § 230, aka Section 230.

 

Quote

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material.

 

Of course "offensive" is poorly defined and therefore wide open to interpretation, often being used to shut down opposition voices, and there's little in the way of due process.

 

Like in Communist China's Social Credit system. 

 

This has led to atrocities; one example being virus researchers who saw evidence of a laboratory source for CoVid-19 being deplatfofmed from social media, something that now is being taken seriously. Disgusting.

 

The left cannot have it both ways.

Edited by DocM
Link to comment

Texas, Florida, and California seem to be in a competition for craziest, most illogical state.

 

Kind of hard to call... although this very well may put Texas in the lead now.

Link to comment
On 30/10/2021 at 17:28, margrave said:

Texas, Florida, and California seem to be in a competition for craziest, most illogical state.

 

Kind of hard to call... although this very well may put Texas in the lead now

 

Florida, New York...there's a lot of weird out there. A lot weirder than telling social media companies to stuff it.

Link to comment

Not enforceable except for companies in TX and for them I hope they bury TX in lawsuits and force them to spend hundreds of millions defending such lawsuits.  Just one more reason to let the so-called 'silicon prairie' wither away. 

 

Let's see them try to force a private property owner (owner of a social media platform, internet forum, et al) host content they do not want to host.  And they say they are the party of small government and freedom.  Just another thing they are hypocrites about -- big shocker.

 

Your rights ends when another's begins.  You don't get to abridge another person's freedoms by forcing them to host content they consider objectionable on a server they paid for.  That would be like making it illegal to demand someone leave your property after you invited them to dinner if they start throwing around racial epithets and the like. 

 

The malignant ideology of fascism that brought us the second World War which resulted in millions of needless deaths is incompatible in whole with civilization and I applaud any hosting provider, social media platform, etc that refuses to give safe harbor to such a dangerous ideology. 

 

The internet has actually never been freer than it is now, and I've been using it since 1996.  I remember when the only discussion forums were Usenet / NNTP and very little else.  Now? You have things like I2P, Tor, etc to self-host objectionable content if one is so determined.  You want to throw that garbage onto the internet? Then host it yourself or find someone who is fine with you doing it.  Don't like Discord, Slack, Telegram, etc shutting down your David Lane Fan Club channel?  Host your own IRC server and then you make the rules.  There certainly weren't this many options out there in 1996 and very few open-source solutions either. 

 

A lot of these people often mention how wild west the internet was in the early to mid 1990s.  But was it, really? Even if you were one of the few that had a full duplex uncapped T1 line (1 megabit up and down) that still wasn't really enough to do something like broadcast a live stream or even a podcast since the MPEG encoders of the day easily took 12 hours or more to encode a 30-40 minute video or music file.  Live streaming? Forget it unless you had a massive array to do the encoding quickly enough. 

 

If I went on a firearm enthusiast forum and posted about how I want the second amendment repealed, I would be banned and that would be the forum owner's right as it is their property.  If I went on Gab to try to extoll the virtues of collectivism I would likely also be banned; and that would be their right since it is their property that they are paying to host.  If I signed up for hosting from a hosting provider that claims to be for hosting vegan-only businesses and put up a website for a butcher or meatpacking business I would get dehosted, as is their right also. 

 

So where, according to these people, do we draw the line?  Do spammers, trolls, etc get freedom of expression too on all discussion platforms? What about scammers or phishers? 

 

And lastly, a reminder: the first amendment of the U.S. constitution forbids the government from limiting your ability to express yourself -- it does NOT forbid non-governmental entities from doing so -- such as your employer at your place of work, or a social media platform, etc.  If you don't like that, lobby to amend the constitution. 

Edited by DeusProto
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
On 30/10/2021 at 18:28, DeusProto said:

Not enforceable except for companies in TX and for them I hope they bury TX in lawsuits and force them to spend hundreds of millions defending such lawsuits.  Just one more reason to let the so-called 'silicon prairie' wither away. 

 

Texas is the fastest growing state in the US, gaining 2 House seats this census while California and New York lost 1 each. First seat  loss for CA in its history. Businesses are following, large ones. Tesla ($1.1T) in a big way. Oracle, HP, and over 100 others. Link...

 

No wither in sight.

 

On 30/10/2021 at 18:28, DeusProto said:

>

Your rights ends when another's begins.  You don't get to abridge another person's freedoms by forcing them to host content they consider objectionable on a server they paid for. 

>

Net Neutrality has features which would do that, and if mandated by FCC the full force of sites suddenly being "the public square" would add the judicial review of censored opinions & speech where it doesn't exist now. 

 

On 30/10/2021 at 18:28, DeusProto said:

The malignant ideology of fascism that brought us the second World War which resulted in millions of needless deaths is incompatible in whole with civilization and I applaud any hosting provider, social media platform, etc that refuses to give safe harbor to such a dangerous ideology. 

What you're seeing in the right (Trumpism)  and left (Sandersism) today isn't Nazism but Populism, a whole other critter which crosses the usual boundaries. In 2016 - 2020 this was shown by the many Bernie supporters voted for Trump, twice   

 

On 30/10/2021 at 18:28, DeusProto said:

>

A lot of these people often mention how wild west the internet was in the early to mid 1990s.  But was it, really?

 

It sure was on the dialup forums of the 1980's. 

 

On 30/10/2021 at 18:28, DeusProto said:

>

If I went on a firearm enthusiast forum and posted about how I want the second amendment repealed, I would be banned and that would be the forum owner's right as it is their property.

More likely you'd be informed about the process of amending the Constitution, it  requiring 37 states to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and the futility thereof.  If you then made a jerk of yourself, then you'd be tossed.

 

On 30/10/2021 at 18:28, DeusProto said:

>

So where, according to these people, do we draw the line?  Do spammers, trolls, etc get freedom of expression too on all discussion platforms?

 

They do if they're progressives. They can get away with most anything. Conservatives get deplatformed.

 

Selective outrage.

 

On 30/10/2021 at 18:28, DeusProto said:

What about scammers or phishers? 

 

Shoot 'em. I'll supply the ammo. The wall is thataway ->>

 

On 30/10/2021 at 18:28, DeusProto said:

And lastly, a reminder: the first amendment of the U.S. constitution forbids the government from limiting your ability to express yourself -- it does NOT forbid non-governmental entities from doing so -- such as your employer at your place of work, or a social media platform, etc.  

 

Employers are one thing, they can restrict employee activities in the job. However,  Section 230 was written because that power didn't exist before wrt social media - whose original idea was to discuss divergent points of view.  Now it's too often an echo chamber for one side. That's not a discussion, it's mental masturbation.

Link to comment
On 30/10/2021 at 22:15, DocM said:

 

Texas is the fastest growing state in the US, gaining 2 House seats this census while California and New York lost 1 each. First seat  loss for CA in its history. Businesses are following, large ones. Tesla ($1.1T) in a big way. Oracle, HP, and over 100 others. Link...

 

No wither in sight.

 

Net Neutrality has features which would do that, and if mandated by FCC the full force of sites suddenly being "the public square" would add the judicial review of censored opinions & speech where it doesn't exist now. 

 

What you're seeing in the right (Trumpism)  and left (Sandersism) today isn't Nazism but Populism, a whole other critter which crosses the usual boundaries. In 2016 - 2020 this was shown by the many Bernie supporters voted for Trump, twice   

 

 

It sure was on the dialup forums of the 1980's. 

 

More likely you'd be informed about the process of amending the Constitution, it  requiring 37 states to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and the futility thereof.  If you then made a jerk of yourself, then you'd be tossed.

 

 

They do if they're progressives. They can get away with most anything. Conservatives get deplatformed.

 

Selective outrage.

 

 

Shoot 'em. I'll supply the ammo. The wall is thataway ->>

 

 

Employers are one thing, they can restrict employee activities in the job. However,  Section 230 was written because that power didn't exist before wrt social media - whose original idea was to discuss divergent points of view.  Now it's too often an echo chamber for one side. That's not a discussion, it's mental masturbation.

No. All of this no. Cry more, the tears taste good. 

 

"selective outrage"... 

 

Yeah... Sure... Not because Conservatives violate the terms of service more often or anything....nope. Couldn't be it. 

 

This law will be struck down no matter how much you pretend to know about what net neutrality is or does. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 31/10/2021 at 05:39, wakjak said:

No. All of this no. Cry more, the tears taste good. 

 

Are you aware that in October a bi-partisan bill was introduced in the House to fix Section 230? That #1 Dem think tank the Brookings Institute has advised repealing it (in the same breath as pushing net-neutrality)? 

 

The issues with Section 230 are definitely not partisan, even if you are.

 

On 31/10/2021 at 05:39, wakjak said:

This law will be struck down no matter how much you pretend to know about what net neutrality is or does. 

 

Perhaps, but it has definitely started the Section 230 reform ball rolling, a good thing. So did Biden's dropping DoJ awsuits against California's net neutrality law. 

Link to comment
On 20/11/2021 at 15:36, DocM said:

Perhaps

No, not perhaps. 100%.

On 20/11/2021 at 15:36, DocM said:

but it has definitely started the Section 230 reform ball rolling, a good thing. So did Biden's dropping DoJ awsuits against California's net neutrality law. 

lol no. I guarantee you there won't be any bill passing that will "reform section 230".

Link to comment
On 10/09/2021 at 15:53, mudslag said:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-media-law-hb-20-signed-greg-abbott

 

 

 

Texas: We don't like governments meddling in our affairs

Also Texas: Frak your voting, Women's and 1st Amendment Rights

Leftist: "We like minorities and minority opinions"
Also leftists: "Only if they suit our narrative. All other opinions and viewpoints must be silenced."

Link to comment
On 20/11/2021 at 18:14, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Leftist: "We like minorities and minority opinions"
Also leftists: "Only if they suit our narrative. All other opinions and viewpoints must be silenced."

I see you’re back to “I can’t comment on the actual topic at hand so I’ll deflect”. 

Link to comment
On 24/11/2021 at 01:42, mudslag said:

I see you’re back to “I can’t comment on the actual topic at hand so I’ll deflect”. 

I was actually directly commenting on the topic. You just can't piece it together.

Link to comment
On 25/11/2021 at 16:08, SpeedyTheSnail said:

I was actually directly commenting on the topic.

No, you only think you were because of your bias.  You just can't piece that together.

Link to comment
On 25/11/2021 at 11:25, Dick Montage said:

No, you only think you were because of your bias.  You just can't piece that together.

Coming from a guy named..... Dick Montage?

Link to comment
On 26/11/2021 at 16:49, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Coming from a guy named..... Dick Montage?

Please elaborate how my pseudonym has any bearing here.  This should be a laugh...

 

Link to comment
On 25/11/2021 at 10:08, SpeedyTheSnail said:

I was actually directly commenting on the topic. You just can't piece it together.

That doesn’t mean what you think that means.

Link to comment
On 30/10/2021 at 17:28, margrave said:

Texas, Florida, and California seem to be in a competition for craziest, most illogical state.

 

Kind of hard to call... although this very well may put Texas in the lead now.

 

Texas and Florida are sane unlike California which is pretty much the sewer of the USA. so it's a easy call.

 

On 20/11/2021 at 19:14, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Also leftists: "Only if they suit our narrative. All other opinions and viewpoints must be silenced."

Pretty much sums it up.

 

they used to be for free speech but not anymore, sadly. now their general mindset is "obey us and our narrative or else!". but given how radical many of them have become, they can't win since the truth is generally not in their side. so they gotta resort to shady tactics to 'win'.

 

p.s. but since you called them out it's a knee-jerk reaction for them to rebel against you with the 'face palm' (for your comment there) since they can't handle the truth. getting a 'face palm' from a leftist is actually means your telling the truth as it pretty much plays inline with this quote, "To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."

Link to comment
On 27/11/2021 at 19:08, ThaCrip said:

they used to be for free speech but not anymore, sadly. now their general mindset is "obey us and our narrative or else!". but given how radical many of them have become, they can't win since the truth is generally not in their side. so they gotta resort to shady tactics to 'win'.

Free speech doesn’t mean you can throw a fit when your account is suspended when you violate the TOS and then cry your “free speech” is being infringed upon.

 

On 27/11/2021 at 19:08, ThaCrip said:

but since you called them out it's a knee-jerk reaction for them to rebel against you with the 'face palm' (for your comment there) since they can't handle the truth. getting a 'face palm' from a leftist is actually means your telling the truth as it pretty much plays inline with this quote, "To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."

rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-animated-gif-6.gif.e760c8cf75f7f0bf4b7263843fb785e0.gif

 

Link to comment
On 27/11/2021 at 18:08, ThaCrip said:

 

Texas and Florida are sane unlike California which is pretty much the sewer of the USA. so it's a easy call.

 

Pretty much sums it up.

 

they used to be for free speech but not anymore, sadly. now their general mindset is "obey us and our narrative or else!". but given how radical many of them have become, they can't win since the truth is generally not in their side. so they gotta resort to shady tactics to 'win'.

 

p.s. but since you called them out it's a knee-jerk reaction for them to rebel against you with the 'face palm' (for your comment there) since they can't handle the truth. getting a 'face palm' from a leftist is actually means your telling the truth as it pretty much plays inline with this quote, "To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."

Nothing in your response has a thing to do with the topic.

 And as far as any knee-jerk reactions, your response is an exemplary example. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
On 27/11/2021 at 19:08, ThaCrip said:

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."

And frankly the quote should read, “To anger a liberal, lie to him.  To anger a conservative, tell him the truth,”

 

P.S. Teddy Roosevelt never said that quote https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-roosevelt-liberals-conserva-idUSKCN24P1XL ;)

Link to comment

So dumb that Texas has Castle Doctrine for physical property involving ownership but not for internet property involving ownership.

Do they not see their own inconsistency??

On 28/11/2021 at 08:08, ThaCrip said:

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."

To anger both conservatives and liberals, tell them that they are dabbling in false dichotomies and that political and economic centrism are actually possible, and are not forms of fence-sitting. :)

Link to comment
On 28/11/2021 at 01:36, devHead said:

I guess Texas Lawmakers are the new snowflakes. 

Remember, these are the same cretins who severed Texas's power grid from the rest of the USA and refused to upgrade it's renewables to handle bad weather...

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.