FTC investigates “tech censorship,” says it’s un-American and may be illegal

"Tech firms should not be bullying their users," Chairman Andrew Ferguson says.

See full article...

 

[graylshaped]

I concede that point however tech platforms span many countries and I am wondering how would platforms like twitter and facebook handle posts that are deemed illegal in one country but legal in another. This is a big can of worms.

The funny thing is that the courts slapped down California just for trying to require sites to describe how or even if they handled different types of speech.

 

[graylshaped]

Pretty rich, coming from the most un-american executive branch setup in history...

This administration would respond to this argument with a No True American fallacy.

 

[graylshaped]

While I take serious issue with the fact that large, unelected corporations lead by eccentric billionaires can proselytize whatever the hell suits their fancy to swaths of Americans who came to those platforms for reasons completely unrelated to the weird opinions of billionaires, the Republican party has usually been given the pass for behavior that violates those platforms' moderation policies... you know, the moderation policies that constitute the only administrator opinions that typically draw and drive user bases to social media platforms.

I have seen social media platforms allow hate speech because it happens to come from powerful people, and I have seen propaganda operations label themselves as journalistic endeavors. Forcing platforms to allow their public discourse to turn into a no-rules free-for-all is the opposite of a solution here.

A free-for-all is what the chaotic evilly-aligned puppetmasters want.

 

[shadowfaxcrx]

Cool. So when I go on X and point out that Elon Musk is a fascist who cozies up to Nazis, he'll go to jail when he deletes the post. Right?

 

[SteveBigandTall]

odds this is applied fairly across all political genres?

 

[graylshaped]

How is this different than Chik-fil-a making business decisions based upon religious reasons? I thought companies were people now?

The funny thing about that is that I made a consumer decision about Chik-fil-a based solely on their exercise of their rights. As is my right. I'm told their chicken is fine. I'll never know.

 

[theotherjim]

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.

The R's have a whole industry (Heritage Society, Federalist Society, Claremont, and so many other billions of dollars worth) dedicated to understanding laws and Constitution minutely, expressly so they can find or create the weak points to set the explosives. This has been a decades-long process, it didn't just start Jan 20.

 

[graylshaped]

A British citizen has been sent to prison for harassing a member of Parliament on line. What he did was more or less repeat what Musk said about her (which was all lies, but you knew that).
In this country Musk would also have been in the dock.
We don't like people inciting the mentally unstable to attack our public figures. We've had two MPs murdered by right wing extremists and that's two too many. We don't want to end up like countries where politicians need to be rich enough to pay for bodyguards and armoured cars.

Our freedom to walk around without fear is being eroded by the incitements of Trump and Musk, and eventually European countries are either going to have to give up on democracy or block and censor Xwitter and its homologues. Surveys show a large majority want it.

Last I heard, Musk doesn't have a diplomatic passport. Perhaps a committee could be formed to "welcome" him next time he shows up at Heathrow.

 

[smallscreensw]

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.

Even more so, conservatives have created their own largely fact-free bubbles in the form of "Truth" Social, X (under Musk), right-wing talk radio, Fox "News" Channel, and other outlets. They have plenty of their own backyards into which they can spew their toxic rhetoric. So the other outlets absolutely have the right to police what's carried on them. Hey, conservatives - if you want more viewers, listeners and followers, start saying what they (the rest of us) want to hear - and start by knocking off the bigotry and outright lies!

 

[cfenton]

I think it's very telling that they provide no details about how it would be illegal. Just some hand waving in the direction of anti-competitive actions.

 

[fractl]

The R's have a whole industry (Heritage Society, Federalist Society, Claremont, and so many other billions of dollars worth) dedicated to understanding laws and Constitution minutely, expressly so they can find or create the weak points to set the explosives. This has been a decades-long process, it didn't just start Jan 20.

It's much more than that. It's a whole pipeline to create legitimacy for fascist ideology.

 

[smallscreensw]

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.

Yeah, I seem to remember something called "Citizens United" and a Supreme Court ruling claiming (especially commercial) corporations are natural persons, and natural persons have 1st Amendment free-speech rights, something like that...

 

[barkingcorndog]

Something tells me Truth Social is gonna be in a world of shit.

Pretty sure Truth Social is a world of shit.

 

[MosquitoBait]

Damn reality and its liberal bias.

 

[terrydactyl]

This is like demanding newspapers publish every letter-to-the-editor it receives.

Funny how advocates of the rights of private property don't see these sites as private property.

 

[ducatisymphony]

And that's why people in the UK, Germany, etc are being arrested for posting jokes online.

For the benefit of those of us who aren't aware, care to tell us what "jokes" they were arrested for? I am sure they are absolutely fuckin hilarious!

 

[huskcummerbund]

Funny. When the Biden admin was forcing tech companies to censor memes and jokes this site said Jack shit.

Probably because that's not what actually happened. The Biden Administration asked them to, and the Biden Administration was ignored. Tech companies were not forced to do anything.

 

[huskcummerbund]

That is exactly what happened. Ask Jay batacharya.

Umm, dafuq does he have to do with anything?

 

[huskcummerbund]

Next time the president calls you and "asks" you do to something please tell me it is simply a call. You're naive.

The fact that they still ignored the request tells me they didn't give a shit.

 

[ducatisymphony]

A young woman faced legal action in the UK for posting snoop dogg lyrics online that contained the n word. "In November 2024, a 64-year-old man faced action by German authorities for calling German Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck an “idiot” on social media in June that year. According to media reports, a doctored image of Habeck alongside a shampoo brand was posted on social media with the pun “Schwachkopf Professional”—meaning “professional idiot.” A criminal complaint was filed, leading to a raid at the man’s house."

You want to be able to criticize politicians yes?

Hold on, "faced legal action" or "arrested"? Because you said arrested....and now have changed your wording.

Also, the only media I see reporting on this is right wing sites.....nobody else was aware or reported on it? Main stream media loves this kind of controversy too....they somehow missed it? Or is this another bullshit right wing story? See, it might very well be true but with all the crying wolf the right does lately, I can't just take them at face value anymore.

 

[johnlsenchak]

I get censored by Facebook almost on a weekly basis, by saying that the one hundred percent legitimate links that I post are spam , which they're not.

Every appeal that I do , gets denied

 

[ducatisymphony]

The Left does the same. Believe science? Science shows that the trans suicide issue is a lie. And you will say, "not THAT science.

You think you are just going to toss this horseshit out without citing your supposed science (the study we are all aware of that has been thoroughly debunked for example) and not have it challenged?

 

[ducatisymphony]

I'm writing on a forum not a court proceeding so excuse me for using different words.

Here. Are you satisfied?

"Russell was found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message by a public communication.
She was given an eight-week community order, placed on an eight-week curfew and told to pay costs of £500 and an £85 victim surcharge."

Is the BBC a legitimate enough source for you or is that "fake news?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

My apologies, I should have been more clear....I meant the German story

Edit...and she wasn't arrested either as per the link you provided

Edit2...funny how this started with people being "arrested for posting jokes online" and the example provided is someone posting something deemed to be racist as a tribute to someone. Her intention was not joking. It may have been harmless and "well intentioned" in her mind but still a violation of UK law. You may not like it but that is the law there.

 

[huskcummerbund]

They did not ignore it.

Citation needed

 

[huskcummerbund]

The Biden admin used their executive power to force Twitter to stifle his speech. That's what dafuq he has to do with it dumbass.

Citation need again