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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, this is amazing. Considering cons have been fighting against common carrier regulation for ISPS for decades now. Edge providers are common carriers but the actual carriers are just information services? This should be fun.

There is no logical consistency with the current batch of FedSoc and “conservative” ideologues. They just want power. They rant about Saul Alinksy because that’s whose tactics they actually study and emulate.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly.

I thought conservatives were pro-business? Why are they so eager to regulate businesses like Facebook and Twitter?

But force a bakery to accept an order from a gay person - oh no, that's about freedom of religion!

Maybe Facebook and Twitter should turn this into a religious thing. It would be against their religious beliefs to allow Neonnazis and white supremacists on their sites.

Anonymous wrote:Haha, this is amazing. Considering cons have been fighting against common carrier regulation for ISPS for decades now. Edge providers are common carriers but the actual carriers are just information services? This should be fun.

There is no logical consistency with the current batch of FedSoc and “conservative” ideologues. They just want power. They rant about Saul Alinksy because that’s whose tactics they actually study and emulate.

Haha, this is amazing. Considering cons have been fighting against common carrier regulation for ISPS for decades now. Edge providers are common carriers but the actual carriers are just information services? This should be fun.

Why should SCOTUS have all the fun ignoring the law and shredding the Constitution to ensure Nazis aren’t deplatformed?

Anonymous wrote:So corporations have religious rights to discriminate against the healthcare that or their employees want, and the freedom of speech to donate however much they want to whatever candidates they want, but not the right to determine who says what on their property?

Pretty much.

Don’t make me agree with Cato you lunatics:
https://www.cato.org/blog/are-social-media-companies-common-carriers

So corporations have religious rights to discriminate against the healthcare that or their employees want, and the freedom of speech to donate however much they want to whatever candidates they want, but not the right to determine who says what on their property?

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.

Crazy that this opinion, holding Texas can force social media companies to publish anything it wants, might not be the most insane judicial opinion of the week: https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-16-Published-Opinion-dckt-.pdf