Fifth Circuit Decision on Texas Social Media Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if social media companies can’t remove inappropriate content, I guess that means people are free to use social media platforms in Texas to post pro-trans propaganda, particularly that targeting teens and encouraging them to transition? And I guess they can use social media to promote books like Gender Queer without their content being removed?

Exactly. And they should be free to join Truth Social and post anti-Trump screeds. I guess that would be a way of bringing Truth Social back to life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this now mean that radio and TV stations must air whoever wants to buy an ad? School newspapers can't choose what to publish wrt ads? Ads for weed. KKK etc?

The problem is complex. Facebook and Twitter are more akin to phone companies than news media. You can’t regulate / censor speech on phone conversations. What this seemingly does is put (more?) accountability on the content creators. Trouble though may be that we can’t physically find the creators who may be abroad or an AI.

Except for the whole local of local/regional monopolies thing.

DP. I mean, the ignorance these people display while trying to sound like they know what what they’re talking about is remarkable.

Pop quiz: what is the market failure common carrier regulations counter? If you cannot answer that question, you have no business talking about this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this now mean that radio and TV stations must air whoever wants to buy an ad? School newspapers can't choose what to publish wrt ads? Ads for weed. KKK etc?

The problem is complex. Facebook and Twitter are more akin to phone companies than news media. You can’t regulate / censor speech on phone conversations. What this seemingly does is put (more?) accountability on the content creators. Trouble though may be that we can’t physically find the creators who may be abroad or an AI.

The are absolutely not akin to phone companies. Ask MySpace how it’s going for them.

But they aren’t like newspapers either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this now mean that radio and TV stations must air whoever wants to buy an ad? School newspapers can't choose what to publish wrt ads? Ads for weed. KKK etc?

The problem is complex. Facebook and Twitter are more akin to phone companies than news media. You can’t regulate / censor speech on phone conversations. What this seemingly does is put (more?) accountability on the content creators. Trouble though may be that we can’t physically find the creators who may be abroad or an AI.

The are absolutely not akin to phone companies. Ask MySpace how it’s going for them.

But they aren’t like newspapers either.

Go answer pp’s pop quiz if you want to be taken seriously here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this now mean that radio and TV stations must air whoever wants to buy an ad? School newspapers can't choose what to publish wrt ads? Ads for weed. KKK etc?

The problem is complex. Facebook and Twitter are more akin to phone companies than news media. You can’t regulate / censor speech on phone conversations. What this seemingly does is put (more?) accountability on the content creators. Trouble though may be that we can’t physically find the creators who may be abroad or an AI.

The are absolutely not akin to phone companies. Ask MySpace how it’s going for them.

But they aren’t like newspapers either.

They're for-profit companies. If a baker can't be forced to bake a cake for a client it doesn't like why should a social media company be forced to accept a user it finds objectionable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this now mean that radio and TV stations must air whoever wants to buy an ad? School newspapers can't choose what to publish wrt ads? Ads for weed. KKK etc?

The problem is complex. Facebook and Twitter are more akin to phone companies than news media. You can’t regulate / censor speech on phone conversations. What this seemingly does is put (more?) accountability on the content creators. Trouble though may be that we can’t physically find the creators who may be abroad or an AI.

The are absolutely not akin to phone companies. Ask MySpace how it’s going for them.

But they aren’t like newspapers either.

So then congress needs to legislate and create a new category.

Oh they can’t get 60 votes? Womp Womp, conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if social media companies can’t remove inappropriate content, I guess that means people are free to use social media platforms in Texas to post pro-trans propaganda, particularly that targeting teens and encouraging them to transition? And I guess they can use social media to promote books like Gender Queer without their content being removed?

NP. I see no problem with that. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The court magically designates social media companies as “common carriers” in the decision. Uh, that’s on Congress to do so.

Social media companies are not monopolies and compete ferociously with each other for eyeballs and ad dollars. So that argument is out the window.

At the end of the day, conservatives want to force others to carry their lies and promote them under the guise of “free speech.” That’s what all this is about.

Uh, no, courts interpret laws, meaning they must have the ability to determine whether something is of a kind.

Also, common carrier doesn't mean monopoly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The court magically designates social media companies as “common carriers” in the decision. Uh, that’s on Congress to do so.

Social media companies are not monopolies and compete ferociously with each other for eyeballs and ad dollars. So that argument is out the window.

At the end of the day, conservatives want to force others to carry their lies and promote them under the guise of “free speech.” That’s what all this is about.

Uh, no, courts interpret laws, meaning they must have the ability to determine whether something is of a kind.

Also, common carrier doesn't mean monopoly.

Activist judges making up as they go.