FTC investigates “tech censorship,” says it’s un-American and may be illegal
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
"Tech firms should not be bullying their users," Chairman Andrew Ferguson says.
Except when they say things like "cisgender", of course.
Except when they say things like "cisgender", of course.
Upvote
423
(435
/
-12)
Upvote
122
(133
/
-11)
So tech firms shouldn't penalise someone for reposting public information such as the current location of N628TS, a gulfstream G650ER?
Upvote
463
(468
/
-5)
Upvote
13
(84
/
-71)
Sure, but I doubt they exist under the legal authority of the American FTC.
Upvote
210
(216
/
-6)
No! Just No. Stop there.
No one, I mean no one is forced onto a social media site. They are not the Government. They can set their own damn rules.
No one is forced to use Facebook, X, Truth, et al. Social Media is not a right (and I'd question even if it is a privilege).
I know folks will say that it is hard "walk away", but honestly, that is a personal thing, because there is no rights when you walk into a private club. They make the GD Rules.
Conservatives scream "Censorship, Ma First Amendment Rights are abused", when there are at least two "Conservative" social media clubs where they can spew/vomit/expel their hate all the fuck day long.
Oh...but I can't do that on <fill in reasonable social media>...then don't.
What will happen here is the FTC/FCC under Trump will censor what is said if it is against Trump, Musk, MAGA, or in any way supports LGBTQ or (gasp) human rights.
FFS people, walk away from X, from Facebook, Instagram, and either figure out open source alts, or remember what it was like to be more one on on with people...Pepperidge Farms remembers
Upvote
348
(362
/
-14)
I'm thinking that before we allow anyone to run for any public office, or work for the government in any official, policy-making capacity, that we require them to take, and pass with an 80% or better score, a comprehensive course in civics, mostly studying the Constitution and how our government works.
That way, Republicans won't be able to run for office at all.
That way, Republicans won't be able to run for office at all.
Upvote
248
(263
/
-15)
Wait, the FTC still exists? Thought it would have been on the list for being too pro consumer.
Upvote
93
(97
/
-4)
If this means websites will just fold their comments section, then we all have nothing left to lose.
Wouldn't matter because the SCOTUS blessed it and nobody will challenge him.
Upvote
71
(75
/
-4)
Upvote
128
(129
/
-1)
The FTC is only as pro-consumer as the bodies that fill it.
Upvote
115
(116
/
-1)
Upvote
167
(171
/
-4)
Well, given that Trump's administration has told doctors that they cannot discuss gender, sex, or race-related topics, how about "last week"?
Upvote
193
(197
/
-4)
Bing news comments is one hell of a censored platform. Their list of no-use words is huge. I even get a sense of AI glossing over your comment to judge if it's angry or otherwise rejected language. I think they only use a whitelist containing "kittens", "sunshine" and "puppies".
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
As obviously unconstitutional as these attacks on social media are, they are certain to be overturned by the US Supreme Court, as long as we don't have any corrupt far-right shitstains like Alito and Thomas on there.
Oh.
Oh.
Upvote
119
(126
/
-7)
J.C. Helios
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Elon Musk downranks the posts of anyone who doesn't pay for a bluecheck, so does that count?
Upvote
157
(159
/
-2)
Oh they know it, they just don't intend to follow it. All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
It has its uses. For example, harassing companies that don't toe the line. Nice merger you have there Paramount, shame if anything happened to it because of 60 Minutes.
Upvote
91
(93
/
-2)
Social Media platforms and the companies that run them are businesses and, as such, have the right to refuse service to anyone and police the behavior of their patrons in the way they see fit so long as it doesn't run afoul of certain laws. The First Amendment doesn't apply here, no matter how much the Free Speech Absolutists (that are doing everything in their power to interfere with any speech they disagree with) want it to. If you are banned for saying things on FB or Xitter that those companies don't want on their platform, it isn't interfering with your freedom of speech. You are still free to go outside and say all the stupid shit you want. The First Amendment doesn't require businesses to host your rantings.
Upvote
88
(89
/
-1)
Probably the same way they handle stuff like GDPR or state privacy regulations - they either have different rules in different jurisdictions or they group states by how similar their requirements are and set up different rules for each group of states, or (if they are very risk averse), they find the strictest rules and follow them so that they will stay in compliance with a single set of rules.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
If this is something where they are looking for public input, it seems like a perfect time to report X for all they crap Musk is doing there and see what they make of that ;-)
Upvote
69
(70
/
-1)
Upvote
47
(47
/
0)
Germany and Austria did it right by banning all things Nazi. Did we learn anything from it? No.
Upvote
87
(94
/
-7)
Free speech for me, not for thee.
What's that, VPN use went up when the government tried to censor porn in the South? How un-American! Communist DEI wokism!
What's that, VPN use went up when the government tried to censor porn in the South? How un-American! Communist DEI wokism!
Upvote
72
(72
/
0)
This is going to be an interesting summer. It has been a very cold winter here in the northeast, keeping protests to small numbers of diehards. When the weather turns nice, Washington is essentially going to be occupied by protesters.
Note: this comment could be appended to roughly 40% of all articles on Ars since January 20.
Note: this comment could be appended to roughly 40% of all articles on Ars since January 20.
Upvote
44
(44
/
0)
As soon as the FTC attempts to enforce this, would be one answer.
"Day 1 of the current government" would be another. First amendment rights are already being violated by Trump et al. and have been for a month.
Upvote
55
(56
/
-1)
Yeah, and we are all the worse for it. Whatever form America (or the disparate countries that form in the territories that used to be America) takes the shape of after all of this, we are going to have to put it into the founding documents that hate speech is a real thing with real costs that needs to be prosecuted. It needs to be plainly illegal, rather than something people can get away with if the victims of said hate speech don’t have enough money, resources, or time to go through a time-consuming court process to prove harassment, defamation, “true threat” and so forth.
One example: Candidates for election shouldn’t be allowed to spread lies about immigrant communities with the intent of getting others to inflict violence upon them, like what Trump & Vance did to the Haitian communities in Springfield and elsewhere.
Upvote
85
(90
/
-5)
Get ready for many things to be "un-American" and "un-patriotic". Those who have lived in places ruled by totalitarian regimes will recognise the language.
Upvote
85
(86
/
-1)
Tech companies can censor anything they want. It's their platform and they have 1st Amendment rights too.
However, if they are denying or degrading service based on user's speech, that violates the contract not the Constitution.
However, if they are denying or degrading service based on user's speech, that violates the contract not the Constitution.
Upvote
5
(17
/
-12)
I for one look forward to more child porn and gore on Facebook. Grandma is going to love it!
This will not of course expand to the government censoring ex twitter.
This will not of course expand to the government censoring ex twitter.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
Yes. Liberals that get their posts shadow banned on truth social. If the dems had a clue they would brigade the public inquiry with the volumes of TS censorship issues.
Upvote
59
(59
/
0)
I don't think Musk has that many cases pending with the FTC, as of yet.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)