Free Speech

[TexRex]

At this point I think the GOP is well aware of the "unintended" consequences. They either don't care, or are banking on those consequences so that the people/platforms they don't like lose their ability to speak out against them.

Could be interesting to see if they need the public/businesses to stay afloat or if people/businesses (or even politicians) rely on social media more heavily than expected to the point the reach social media provides is vital.

It's not vital. It's optional. Always has been.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Tornado]

I was already pretty uneasy about Parlor being nuked from the internet over the course of a weekend, not because I had any love for the idiots who used it, but because I was uncomfortable (especially after the thing with tumblr a couple years ago) with the fact that a handful of corporations completely control all ability to maintain public discourse over the internet. And today:

https://kotaku.com/discord-blocks-all-ios-users-from-accessing-nsfw-server-1846673801


I wasn't sure if this is the right thread, but I figured it's close enough.

 

[TexRex]

Apple is virulently anti-porn. It's weird. It also seems the zealotry trickles down to smaller entities that are dependant upon Apple's user base.

Edit:

 

[UKMikey]

Is this the execute Ilhan Omar/sterilise Dems guy who was booted from YouTube, Patreon and Roku? He's lucky he even has a platform, let alone the opportunity to try and deprive others of theirs.

 

[UKMikey]

I realise that "free speech" is a total misnomer in this case but LOL...

Mike Lindell’s new free speech network won’t let you use the Lord’s name in vain

Mike Lindell, the man best known for his internet pillow company My Pillow, as well as for his fierce allegiance to Donald Trump, is set to launch a new free speech platform this week that he thinks will put YouTube and Twitter out of business. But it turns out it will limit what users can say – by stopping them from, among other things, taking the Lord’s name in vain.

“Everyone is going to be able to talk freely,” said Mike Lindell about the platform, called Frank, which is set to roll out on 19 April, in an interview with the conservative host Graham Ledger on the Ledger Report podcast. “When you come over now you are going to be able to speak out and have opinions.”

“You don’t get to use the four swear words: the c-word, the n-word, the f-word, or God’s name in vain,” Lindell explained in a video on the Frank landing page.

In an attempt to differentiate itself from other “anything goes” conservative-leaning social networking platforms, Lindell, a Christian, has laid out the type of speech his users will not be able to freely use, including profanity, sexual content, and blasphemous language.

Lindell, the, let us say, creatively minded political theorist, who was banned from Twitter earlier this year for his persistent lies about how Trump actually won the 2020 election, met with the former president in January apparently urging him to consider martial law to defend that claim, and has recently said he’s hired private investigators to look into why Fox News won’t book him any more, has framed the social media venture as a mix between Twitter and YouTube.

“You’re going to have your own like YouTube channel, only that’s your Twitter handle,” he’s said.

He has also, without necessarily explaining how the concept will work, promised users more followers, certainly a unique pitch.

“People are going to have more followers,” Lindell told Steve Bannon recently. “Ten times more followers.”

In a shocking move, Lindell has admitted that criticism of Trump will be permitted on the site.

“Free speech is not pornography. Free speech is not ‘I’m going to kill you’,” said Lindell, who is currently being sued by voting machine manufacturer Dominion for $1.3bn over his own personal free speech about the election.

 

[Imari]

I realise that "free speech" is a total misnomer in this case but LOL...

Mike Lindell’s new free speech network won’t let you use the Lord’s name in vain

Lol. Does he have an AI that's judging the context in order to decide what instances of God's name are in vain and which are not? Or is he just going to block the use of all the names of God on his platform entirely? Because I will be very tickled if it's the latter.

Also, what's wrong with the c-word? I know that the US is staggeringly anti-socialist, but banning calling people Comrade seems a little over the top.

 

[Scaff]

Lol. Does he have an AI that's judging the context in order to decide what instances of God's name are in vain and which are not? Or is he just going to block the use of all the names of God on his platform entirely? Because I will be very tickled if it's the latter.

Also, what's wrong with the c-word? I know that the US is staggeringly anti-socialist, but banning calling people Comrade seems a little over the top.

Pretty much in line with all right wing free speech networks and organisations.

We have an utter tool in the UK called Toby Young, who set up a Free Speech Union that immediately censured people.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ampaign-over-role-of-toby-young-founded-group

 

[TexRex]

I'm curious by what standard things are deemed to be sexual in nature.

Of course, profanity, pornography and saying "I'm going to kill you" (much like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) are protected speech in the United States. Context makes all the difference in the world.

It's weird that the n-word is considered by them to be profanity. I won't use it and I don't much like others using it (which isn't to be confused with the assertion that it shouldn't be protected speech, because it should), regardless of context, but I don't consider it to be profanity. And for the record, I ****ing love profanity.

But as a private platform, its providers can prohibit anything and everything they choose, and they aren't obligated to be fair or indiscriminate about it.

 

[UKMikey]

I realise he is exercising his free speech but his talk of championing others' is a little whack.

As for the n-word it's possible to allow its use and still censure (rather than censor) racist abuse based upon context. But that would require engaged, intelligent administration and moderation.

 

[Joey D]

I wonder if Lindell is going to allow drug talk on his, whatever it is? I'm sure he has some hot takes on the best way to rip a line.

 

[ryzno]

I wonder if Lindell is going to allow drug talk on his, whatever it is? I'm sure he has some hot takes on the best way to rip a line.

I thought he smoked crack?

 

[Imari]

But as a private platform, its providers can prohibit anything and everything they choose, and they aren't obligated to be fair or indiscriminate about it.

Oh, he's free to do whatever he likes with his private platform. It's still amusing to point out his hypocrisy in marketing his platform on "free speech" and then specifically prohibiting some entirely inane language for any adult who has been online for more than 24 hours.

"The four swear words: the c-word, the n-word, the f-word, or God’s name in vain" is the sort of language 8 year olds use to look edgy to other 8 year olds. Maybe that's it, maybe he's making a platform for children in order for them to be able to communicate more directly with Republicans. I can see no sinister ulterior motives for that, Republican politicians demonstrably love children.

 

[UKMikey]

I feel like he missed a trick by not calling the platform Pillow Talk.

 

[TexRex]

I realise he is exercising his free speech but his talk of championing others' is a little whack.

The right in a nutshell.

Oh, he's free to do whatever he likes with his private platform. It's still amusing to point out his hypocrisy in marketing his platform on "free speech" and then specifically prohibiting some entirely inane language for any adult who has been online for more than 24 hours.

No doubt. Just slotting that in because some people don't grasp it. Private providers moderating content in any form and by any manner on the platform they provide, no matter how incongruous or just plain absurd, is protected speech. When speech is protected against government intervention, any attempt to curtail speech or penalize for exercising the right to speech by government actors is unconstitutional.

 

[Imari]

I feel like he missed a trick by not calling the platform Pillow Talk.

But, but, that's WUDE!

 

[UKMikey]

But, but, that's WUDE!

Did anyone tell Rock Hudson and Doris Day?

... OK, OK, Pillock Talk then.

 

[UKMikey]

Callers exercise their free speech:

Spoiler: language

 

[McLaren]

His platform is called Frank? That’s dumb.

Also heard he’s suing Dominion for over a billion dollars. But, some legal advisors think he’s made a mistake making the lawsuit on behalf of MyPillow instead of himself personally. That the company could find itself in a position where they may want to consider removing him if they have that power b/c Dominion has not attacked MyPillow’s reputation, only Lindell.

 

[UKMikey]

It's not going well...

Mike Lindell's social media site Frank is plagued by issues making it impossible to sign up Monday morning

Mike Lindell's social-media site Frank was supposed to launch at 8 a.m. CT Monday morning, but technical issues are preventing users from signing up.

Instead, the MyPillow CEO is talking on a live video on the site and said users will be able to sign up "sometime today."

At 8 a.m. when the site was supposed to launch, it showed a 502 error.

Then, just minutes later at 8:08 a.m., the site showed a "500 internal server error."

At 8:15 a.m., the site allowed the reporter of this story to sign up. It required just an email address and username to make an account. After clicking "create account," the site popped up with another error.

Lindell, the founder and chief executive officer of MyPillow, did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment on the matter.

Lindell stated on Parler that the Frank website is "having a massive attack against it currently."
"We are working to get it up ASAP!" he wrote. "Thank you for your patience."

Moments later, a live video appeared on the website with Lindell speaking about his site.

He said that lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who he said is advising him on his countersuit against Dominion Voting Systems, would appear on his broadcast, alongside Trump-supporting right-wing vloggers Diamond and Silk.

Lindell didn't provide any details about the alleged attack, which he said was "probably the biggest ever," and said, "I don't know if it was bots or what." He said the video would be streaming for the next 48 hours, though users still can't sign up for an account.

Lindell previously said he had spent millions of dollars on the site's security over the last four weeks because he expected the site to be the victim of cyberattacks.

"We're going to be attacked, but I have my own servers and everything," he said. "We're not going to be worried about Amazon taking it down, or YouTube, or Google, or Apple."

Lindell's social-media site has been repeatedly pushed back since he first announced plans to launch his own platform in early March after being banned from Twitter.

The site was meant to launch for VIP access at midnight on Thursday, but dozens of people who had pre-registered said that they were unable to get onto the site.

Later on, Lindell said he moved the launch date and time for his social media and broadcast platform to Monday morning, saying people could sign up and create a profile at that time. He also said he would be broadcasting live, starting with an "historical announcement followed by a line up of guests."

Lindell has made headlines over the past 12 months as a staunch ally of former president Donald Trump and one of the key driving forces behind voter-fraud conspiracy theories. He has been banned by Twitter, sued by voting-machine company Dominion, and had his products pulled from more than 20 retailers, which he said would cost him $65 million in lost revenue this year.

Lindell has repeatedly lambasted social-media sites including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in interviews after they deleted his posts about voter fraud. He originally told Insider he was launching the site, a cross between Twitter and YouTube, where people could "be vocal again and not to be walking on eggshells."

 

[TexRex]

Lindell stated on Parler that the Frank website is "having a massive attack against it currently."

 

[TexRex]

 

[UKMikey]

Vivek doesn't appear to be enjoying the attention he's receiving on Twitter.

 

[Danoff]

Vivek doesn't appear to be enjoying the attention he's receiving on Twitter.

To try to steelman his argument, I went back to section 230:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230)

Even when I squint, I do not see how this makes one the government or quasi-government, and beholden to specific restrictions on government.

Government: "You're not liable for the crap other people post"
Internet Sites: "That's good to know, because people post some real..."
Conservatives: "You're the government now!"
Internet Sites: "Wait what?"

 

[TexRex]

Vivek doesn't appear to be enjoying the attention he's receiving on Twitter.

Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment

Language warning for the article linked to above. I've quoted it in its entirety (sans hyperlinks) below, and in doing so have made it subject to this site's profanity filter.

Today was a weird one for Justice Thomas. Along with his bizarre and confusing dissent in the Oracle/Google case, he has done another one of his random walks down conspiracy theory nonsense lane on an unbriefed issue in which he gets to, once again, attack the 1st Amendment. He's done this a few times now. Two years ago he did this in writing an unprovoked attack on the 1st Amendment regarding NY Times v. Sullivan. Last year, he did it with an unprovoked and bizarre attack on Section 230. And now he's done it again.

Today, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on the Knight 1st Amendment Center case, in which both the District Court and the Appeals Court made it clear that when a government official, using social media in an official capacity, allows replies on a posting (such as a tweet), they are creating a public forum in that space, and therefore cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination -- including blocking individuals for speech they disagree with.

A bunch of very confused and clueless people have (incorrectly) taken to arguing that this somehow means that Twitter itself is a "public forum" and cannot moderate content. That has always been very, very wrong. The courts were clear that they were only talking about the space beneath a public official's statements. The simplest way to think of it is this: If the government rents out an event hall to let the President give a speech, it cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination in blocking people from coming into the hall to hear the speech. That does not mean the event hall itself is now permanently a public forum, or that the event hall owners cannot block people they have banned from their property from attending the speech, or any other events.

And, basically, the argument has stayed with very confused and clueless people... until today, when Justice Thomas decided to put it front and center. It's hard to state how ridiculous this is. Not for the first time, Justice Thomas seems to have become the old cranky uncle who believes in conspiracy theory nonsense. Everything about what he writes here would fit more neatly into a Breitbart comment section or an OANN rant. That it's coming from a Supreme Court Justice is just crazy. Let's break this down bit by bit.

Respondents have a point, for example, that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s account resemble a constitutionally protected public forum. But it seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it.

Again, it does not seem odd at all. It's how it usually works. It's how it works in my example above, when the government makes use of a private forum. Private forums have their own property rights, in the same way that, say, a private baker can choose not to print a message it disagrees with on a cake, but the government itself could not write a law preventing that baker from printing protected messages on cakes. The whole nature of our Constitution is kinda based on the fact that the government has limited authority. It's bizarre that Thomas argues it's "rather odd" to say that the government has less authority than private entities. That's how it's always been.

The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least. Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages. Twitter barred Mr. Trump not only from interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all Twitter users from interacting with his messages.

Again, this is exactly how it has always worked. A private building owner can choose not to rent to the President to give a speech. But if they do rent, the President cannot block attendees based on their viewpoints. This isn't difficult.

Thomas then goes on a long Fox News-style rant about how the big internet companies have too much power, and that the Supreme Court will need to rule on that at some point. He suggests -- again, despite no briefing or oral arguments on this matter, but clearly influenced by nutty conspiracy theorists -- that it could be argued that sites like Twitter are common carriers or subject to public accommodation rules. Again, this is heard quite frequently among the conspiracy theory Trumpist set, but no serious legal analysis has suggested this is even remotely accurate.

The long history in this country and in England of restricting the exclusion right of common carriers and places of public accommodation may save similar regulations today from triggering heightened scrutiny—especially where a restriction would not prohibit the company from speaking or force the company to endorse the speech. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 684 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74, 88 (1980). There is a fair argument that some digital platforms are sufficiently akin to common carriers or places of accommodation to be regulated in this manner.

In many ways, digital platforms that hold themselves out to the public resemble traditional common carriers. Though digital instead of physical, they are at bottom communications networks, and they “carry” information from one user to another. A traditional telephone company laid physical wires to create a network connecting people. Digital platforms lay information infrastructure that can be controlled in much the same way. And unlike newspapers, digital platforms hold themselves out as organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public. Federal law dictates that companies cannot “be treated as the publisher or speaker” of information that they merely distribute. 110 Stat. 137, 47 U. S. C. §230(c)

The analogy to common carriers is even clearer for digital platforms that have dominant market share. Similar to utilities, today’s dominant digital platforms derive much of their value from network size. The Internet, of course, is a network. But these digital platforms are networks within that network. The Facebook suite of apps is valuable largely because 3 billion people use it. Google search—at 90% of the market share—is valuable relative to other search engines because more people use it, creating data that Google’s algorithm uses to refine and improve search results. These network effects entrench these companies. Ordinarily, the astronomical profit margins of these platforms—last year, Google brought in $182.5 billion total, $40.3 billion in net income—would induce new entrants into the market. That these companies have no comparable competitors highlights that the industries may have substantial barriers to entry.

There's a hidden dig at Section 230 at the end of that second paragraph above -- though one that completely misunderstand the nature of 230 and falsely suggests that it was intended to make these platforms act like common carriers (which is the exact opposite of the stated intention of the drafters of 230).

There's also a weird (and confusing) dig at Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page & Sergey Brin -- claiming (incorrectly) that Zuckerberg has full control over Facebook and Brin & Page control all of Google.

To be sure, much activity on the Internet derives value from network effects. But dominant digital platforms are different. Unlike decentralized digital spheres, such as the e-mail protocol, control of these networks is highly concentrated. Although both companies are public, one person controls Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg), and just two control Google (Larry Page and Sergey Brin). No small group of people controls e-mail.

That's... not quite right. There is, again, a kernel of truth in the idea that siloed services are different than protocol-based distributed services. That's a point I make all the damn time. But the conclusion elides (1) how protocols are actually managed and (2) how much control those three individuals actually have. It is true that those three have special voting power over their shares, but that does not give them the level of control that Thomas suggests. This also ignores the fact that in the last few years -- despite Thomas' claims -- we have seen competitors springing up over and over again.

Then we get to the bit that is getting a ton of attention today. Thomas argues in a footnote that Section 230 itself might violate the 1st Amendment. We first saw this insane argument -- and debunked it -- a few months ago. It has no basis in reality. Yet here's Thomas:

For similar reasons, some commentators have suggested that immunity provisions like §230 could potentially violate the First Amendment to the extent those provisions pre-empt state laws that protect speech from private censorship. See Volokh, Might Federal Preemption of SpeechProtective State Laws Violate the First Amendment? The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason, Jan. 23, 2021. According to that argument, when a State creates a private right and a federal statute pre-empts that state law, “the federal statute is the source of the power and authority by which any private rights are lost or sacrificed.” Railway Employees v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 232 (1956); accord, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 614–615 (1989).

There are all sorts of oddities here. First, the citation of Eugene Volokh's piece entitled Might Federal Preemption of Speech-Protective State Laws Violate the First Amendment?. Not that I'm against the Supreme Court randomly citing smart blog posts from thoughtful commentators, but it's still... a little weird. And if you actually read Volokh's piece, which itself is a response to the Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld Wall Street Journal op-ed that I mentioned above, it seems fairly skeptical of the idea that 230 could possibly violate the 1st Amendment. Instead, it's trying to set out the strongest possible argument for that, which Volokh seems to make reluctantly for the sake of argument, noting multiple times that he doesn't necessarily agree with it, and it relies on a Supreme Court ruling that he believes is incorrect.

But the biggest oddity of all is... what the **** is he actually trying to say here? His argument is that 230 might be unconstitutional because it might "pre-empt state laws that protect speech from private censorship." Beyond putting a shiny gloss on Volokh's argument, private censorship is allowed. That's kind of important. I mean, Thomas wrote a whole concurrence in the Masterpiece Bakeshop case arguing this very point... in the other direction.

Either way, this is now the third time in which Justice Thomas has randomly mused about free speech in a way that seems designed to attack social media and in line with the nutty conspiracy theories seen on Fox News/OANN/Breitbart. It's almost as if he's living in a weird alternative reality bubble and disconnected from the real world. While he mentions it in passing in his weird dissent, he might want to actually reread the Halleck decision which he signed onto, and which makes it quite clear that private companies can moderate content how they see fit on their platforms.

Unfortunately, though, as with his last two random outbursts on these issues, it's likely we're going to see lots of confused and ignorant people citing Thomas' random unbriefed musings as proof that their nonsense has legitimacy.

To try to steelman his argument, I went back to section 230:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230)

Even when I squint, I do not see how this makes one the government or quasi-government, and beholden to specific restrictions on government.

Government: "You're not liable for the crap other people post"
Internet Sites: "That's good to know, because people post some real..."
Conservatives: "You're the government now!"
Internet Sites: "Wait what?"

It's astonishing that people can get something so very simple so very wrong. Of course it's not mysterious, as Secton 230 is seen as something of which big tech are beneficiaries, but it's really just codification of that which is entirely reasonable and that which benefits everyone on the internet who is subject to the laws of the United States.

It's just insane that so many of those getting it so very wrong are actual legislators--the government--and they're threatening to amend/revoke the provision as retaliation against private actors for protected speech.

 

[TexRex]

Republicans: "Big Tech is a threat to our freedom of speech."

Also Republicans: "We don't like what you have to say and we will use the weight of the United States Congress to punish you for saying it."

Rick Scott warns 'woke corporate leaders' of 'massive backlash'

Florida Sen. Rick Scott (R) warned corporations opposing Georgia's recently enacted voting restrictions they will face "massive backlash" during the midterm elections in an op-ed published Monday.

"You will rue the day when it hits you. That day is November 8, 2022. That is the day Republicans will take back the Senate and the House. It will be a day of reckoning," Scott wrote for Fox Business in an op-ed framed as a letter to "Woke Corporate America."

Scott, who leads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, went on to warn that companies' donations to candidates would not help them.

"There will be no number of well-connected lobbyists you can hire to save you. There will be no amount of donations you can make that will save you. There will be nowhere for you to hide," he wrote.

Scott is the latest politician to hit corporations for publicly voicing their disapproval of the law that Democrats argue makes it harder for many people, particularly minorities, to vote.

Last month, the CEO of Atlanta-based Coca-Cola James Quincey called the measure "unacceptable."

A number of other companies, including Delta Air Lines, JPMorgan Chase and Major League Baseball, which pulled its annual All-Star Game out of Atlanta over the bill's passage, followed suit.

Republicans argue the bill, which was signed into law by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), is needed to tighten security around elections.

Former President Trump called on Republicans to boycott the companies earlier this month.

"For years the Radical Left Democrats have played dirty by boycotting products when anything from that company is done or stated in any way that offends them. Now they are going big time with the WOKE CANCEL CULTURE and our sacred elections," Trump said in a statement.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What the....

 

[Scaff]

What the....

Are you sitting down.....

....I utterly agree that’s absurd.

 

[TexRex]

 

[UKMikey]

The original Hagerty tweet is getting a pasting on the ratio front.