Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

[Sam I am]

It will be interesting to see what happens if the articles of impeachment are for inciting an insurrection and successfully passed. Does that inadvertently increase the stakes on every legal proceeding?

I think impeachment is a mistake...I would prefer they just let Trump wander off and hopefully disappear. I believe the entire impeachment process is simply to prevent a 2024 run. Having said that, I did see a hilarious meme the other day....

 

[Hair Warrior]

Twitter is not analogous to a newspaper. Twitter is analogous to 1994 AOL - except you don’t pay for it bc they use your data in exchange for monetization in other ways.

BT BT

For everyone cheering the knockout blow to Parler - keep in mind that Parler was poised to begin cutting into the market share of the dominant tech companies. Who cares if it would never get as big as Twitter or AWS, but if you want to have choice in this world you also need to have free and fair market competition.

 

[SlickAg]

If you think of Twitter as analogous to a newspaper (which isn't that much a stretch) what's the difference between a newspaper not printing every letter to the editor or advertisement they don't want to and twitter not allowing every post? The media having a ton of control over what does and doesn't get passed to the public and how that message gets passed is nothing new. The media is a primarily a business and therefore is primarily focused on making money. Turns out lots of people have used the power of media to advance their own goals, see a guy named Hearst. The media has no obligation to provide everyone an equal voice. In the prologue to the excellent "twilight of the gods" toll has a bit on how FDR hated the media and was convinced that the four media families in power then were out to get him.

The media not printing your post/editorial isn't censorship, that's a business decision. Censorship would be if you opened your own social media platform or printing press and the government came in and shut you down because of what you were printing. Trump hasn't been censored, the paper just stopped running his column. He can still pass his message via his own White House Press Office.

I'm familiar with Hearst, hence my quote above:

A private company that chose to BLOCK the New York Post and subsequently blackmail them by preventing them from using its Twitter account to share ANYTHING until they agreed to take down an article which negatively impacted "their" candidate's election chances is no longer a private company. I view it as modern-day "yellow journalism". This is but one example.

The difference is that social media is NOT a newspaper. In fact, Twitter (and Facebook) specifically seek protection under the Communications Decency Act, the fabled Section 230. This is exactly why they are VERY quick to point out that they are not moderating content due to the opinions or ideas expressed therein, but because it violates the T&C's because it "glorifies violence" or some other reason. Because otherwise they could be held liable for the content of what is posted on the mediums which they host.

 

[BigRed389]

All of this stuff already happens across all social media platforms every day. It's the "new normal" if you will.

1) Private company doing business with private individuals. Legally they'd be fine. In this day and age of social media, they'd be cancelled. HARD. Onus is on the company to stick to their guns or give in to the woke mob.

2) We know that both of those things are already happening. And yet the show must go on. Just because cars crash sometimes doesn't mean the world has stopped driving. The following excerpt is from 2005. I still use gmail. So do millions of other people.

"One terrorist drafts a Web-based e-mail and instead of sending it, saves it to the draft folder, accessible online from anywhere in the world. The other terrorist can open the same account, read the message, and delete it. The e-mail has never been sent, and cannot be tracked.

Many e-mails are sent on public computers, for example in libraries or cyber cafés, making them even more difficult to trace."

Special Reports - The Terrorist's Tricks And Counter-Measures | Al Qaeda's New Front | FRONTLINE | PBS

3) Again, happens every. single. day. across. the. world. Look at the couple in St. Louis who stood in front of their property with firearms. What happened to them? What about the officers accused of killing George Floyd? No googling, what happened with the charges against them. America has a short attention span nowadays. The internet has a long memory. If you're afraid of the latter, it's your right to minimize your digital footprint as much as possible. There's a good reason most of us use handles here rather than our real names.

I think that might work and I’d be more convinced, as long as it’s addressed as being separate from a First Amendment issue.

The problem with leaving #1 the way it is that the legal defense to allow the baker not to provide service was that it was a First Amendment expression of their beliefs not to support someone else’s First Amendment expression. If you can say that that is a First Amendment right it’s contradictory to precedent to say that not allowing digital platforms isn’t also a violation of their First Amendment rights to not associate themselves with content they may find objectionable.
If you make it instead a reform to Section 230 which they operate under, you could require them to not conduct political censorship if they want to keep that privilege. That keeps it separate from getting wrapped up in First Amendment censorship issues.
Saying “no First Amendment censorship” is convenient but there is too much, really decades of historical stuff in there already to unpack and I’m not a fan of when politicians try for massive sweeping legislation.

 

[BigRed389]

Twitter is not analogous to a newspaper. Twitter is analogous to 1994 AOL - except you don’t pay for it bc they use your data in exchange for monetization in other ways.

BT BT

For everyone cheering the knockout blow to Parler - keep in mind that Parler was poised to begin cutting into the market share of the dominant tech companies. Who cares if it would never get as big as Twitter or AWS, but if you want to have choice in this world you also need to have free and fair market competition.

Id be more sympathetic to Parler if their Terms of Service literally hadn’t said they could remove your content any time for any reason they found objectionable at any time. And that anything they considered indecent could be removed. You know - the standard Tech company clause with users.

I didn’t cheer the blow to them exactly - I just think they were a time bomb waiting to blow as they were founded on a contradiction as they were not about being fully uncensored - they were about uncensoring a very specific thing.

As soon as libtard trolls dropped in and started posting objectionable stuff or trolls in general started posting bouncing tits they either would have had to do similar things as Twitter to manage it or risk pissing off the part of their users who would have been offended by it.

 

[SlickAg]

I think that might work and I’d be more convinced, as long as it’s addressed as being separate from a First Amendment issue.

The problem with leaving #1 the way it is that the legal defense to allow the baker not to provide service was that it was a First Amendment expression of their beliefs not to support someone else’s First Amendment expression. If you can say that that is a First Amendment right it’s contradictory to precedent to say that not allowing digital platforms isn’t also a violation of their First Amendment rights to not associate themselves with content they may find objectionable.
If you make it instead a reform to Section 230 which they operate under, you could require them to not conduct political censorship if they want to keep that privilege. That keeps it separate from getting wrapped up in First Amendment censorship issues.
Saying “no First Amendment censorship” is convenient but there is too much, really decades of historical stuff in there already to unpack and I’m not a fan of when politicians try for massive sweeping legislation.

Reading a review of the case reveals that the Supreme Court actually overturned the decision because a commissioner, I think from Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, was hostile towards the bakery owner's sincerely held religious beliefs. So it was decided on an extremely narrow basis. But again, the First Amendment right is essentially protection from being prosecuted for stating your beliefs. The complaint wasn't that the bakery violated the couple's First Amendment rights, but their CIVIL rights to not be discriminated against due to their homosexuality.

 

[Pags]

I think you guys are too focused on technical details of what may have been imprecise analogy. To be more general, no business is under any obligation to provide anyone with an uncensored platform. Especially if it exposes them to risk.

 

[SlickAg]

I'd be curious to know how much the decision to remove Trump from Twitter or to remove Parler from storefronts and AWS were made based on potential exposure to legal risk due to the messages that were being carried on those services. I'd imagine the legal decisions weighed heavily in the decision making process.

I don’t think that was a primary driver at all. Did Facebook ban all of the antifa groups who organized using their platform? Did Twitter silence anyone encouraging the violence that happened during the riots?

I'm going to say no. But they were still protected under section 230. That’s why Silicon Valley gave so much money to Democratic candidates.

 

[ChuckMK23]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348638293873758210

 

[ABMD]

[QUOTE="Spekkio, post: 1011721, member: 9533"

I don't think that Facebook / Twitter / et al should be a platform for flat earthers, scientologists, or whatever other demented ideologies people may have in the name of 'free speech.' And yeah, Trump probably should have been banned two years ago along with them because he posts some off-the-wall bullshit sometimes. If people can't objectively support what they're posting with facts that have undergone judicial or scientific review, it should be deleted.

[/QUOTE]

I think people forget that you have no first amendment right to social media, the first amendment protects us from being silenced by our government. As much as I abhor social media and wish that 99.9% of it to disappear overnight, they operate as private companies and can deny access to any customer/user just like any brick and motor retail establishment. I do have a problem with them permanently banning a sitting President (for saying something I proved earlier he didn't say) meanwhile allowing the Ayatollah to continue with his account, you know because he's just a swell guy.

edit..posted this without seeing that this had already been posted

 

[ABMD]

For the record, I like Trump’s policies not the man. Trump as a person is a huge asshole and egomaniac. I think Trump lost the election but there was enough questionable stuff that an investigation should be launched to ensure future elections do not have this same level of doubt from voters. I think Trump’s conduct since the election has been abysmal but it is not impeachable. I think Trump’s actions in the run up to the elect lost him the election. I think his actions since the election lost the GOP the Georgia senate seats. I don’t think Trump should run again in 2024. I think the riots at the Capitol were wrong, illegal and people should be held accountable under the law, but they were not an armed insurrection or coup attempt. I feel the same for last summer’s riots and that the hypocrisy is glaring.

Spot on @HAL Pilot couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[SlickAg]

I think you guys are too focused on technical details of what may have been imprecise analogy. To be more general, no business is under any obligation to provide anyone with an uncensored platform. Especially if it exposes them to risk.

I mean, words have meanings. Obviously, I oppose essentially all forms of censorship. The issue here is selective enforcement. And the perceived silencing of the conservative voice.

 

[BigRed389]

Reading a review of the case reveals that the Supreme Court actually overturned the decision because a commissioner, I think from Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, was hostile towards the bakery owner's sincerely held religious beliefs. So it was decided on an extremely narrow basis. But again, the First Amendment right is essentially protection from being prosecuted for stating your beliefs. The complaint wasn't that the bakery violated the couple's First Amendment rights, but their CIVIL rights to not be discriminated against due to their homosexuality.

Fair point - the gay couple wasn’t claiming First A protection. Still the relevant part was used to protect the service provider, even if on a narrow basis.

Still bugs me to call social media moderation a First Amendment issue in that you’re still, through government regulation, fundamentally saying a private entity can’t choose who they do business with. It’d be like a museum choosing to take down an art display as backlash to something an artist does. Or a bar firing a band for saying something politically objectionable. Why open that door at all?

Which is why it’d really only be consistent to apply anti-censorship regulation from a Section 230 reform standpoint.

 

[BigRed389]

I think you guys are too focused on technical details of what may have been imprecise analogy. To be more general, no business is under any obligation to provide anyone with an uncensored platform. Especially if it exposes them to risk.

Doing it under 230 vice a free speech statute gives them options.

If they want to keep immunity from liability due to user content, they’re using 230, and therefore the government can add to it - it’s already a regulation, so it’s got to be mutually agreeable for both the government and industry for them to get to use its protections as provided by the state. It makes them immune from legal risk, but obviously then get to balance that against the risk of dealing with the impact of unmoderated content. A good way to manage that is how Reddit works with different subgroups.

If not, and they want full control of how they moderate content, shed 230 protection and operate like pre-digital age media platforms in exposure but also free speech protections.

 

[Pags]

Doing it under 230 vice a free speech statute gives them options.

If they want to keep immunity from liability due to user content, they’re using 230, and therefore the government can add to it - it’s already a regulation, so it’s got to be mutually agreeable for both the government and industry for them to get to use its protections as provided by the state. It makes them immune from legal risk, but obviously then get to balance that against the risk of dealing with the impact of unmoderated content. A good way to manage that is how Reddit works with different subgroups.

If not, and they want full control of how they moderate content, shed 230 protection and operate like pre-digital age media platforms in exposure but also free speech protections.

But neither of those things obligated them to give users free speech, right (not being difficult, I honestly don't know)?