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...

 

[Sjoerd Verweij]

With due respect, your post suggests you might not understand what the First Amendment actually does.

None is due at all.

 

[Sjoerd Verweij]

Do you want the freedom to criticize your government? That is the freedom that is lost in Europe.

Have you ever even BEEN to Europe?

 

[alisonken1]

Well, let's be clear here: the Constitution DOES say that if you run a public (as is "open to the general public", not a stock-public one) company, you are required to serve everyone.

Actually, that's not in the Constitution. The constitution defines the U.S. organization. It does not get into non-US company issues.

That pesky 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" thing applies. And of course so does several Congressional laws.

Again - you might want to revisit the 14th amendment. It does not say organizations are required to serve everyone. The Constitution and the amendments deal with the Government - not private companies.

The one line that you appear to have correct is about laws - not the same as the Constitution.

At least based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.
"While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, ..."

But, and it's a HUGE but, the 14th Amendment only applies to certain characteristics, mostly inherent characteristics that people cannot change (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.). It doesn't apply to, and you are allowed to slam the door on, most anyone with a voluntary behavior you don't like.

Social Media, by their nature, are almost exclusively a Public Accommodations. You can't prohibit blacks, Jews, women, Mexicans, pregnant women, old people, parapalegics, or veterans from signing up and posting. But you absolutely can prohibit republicans, left-handed people, green-eyed people, Trump supporters, or Nazis. And you can, for example, ban women who talk about something you don't like. Not because they're women, but because they're talking about something you've said is not allowed on your website.


It's never been about "freedom". It's always been about the ability to control other people. To make others (usually the majority) do what YOU (generally a tiny minority) want them to do with their stuff. It's a kissing cousin to the abortion debate: not about the subject in question, but about the ability of tiny groups of people in special places of power to control what everyone else does.

You have an interesting take. But your argument fails in trying to relate what you want to the Constitution.

EDIT: Spelling and links

 

[graylshaped]

Actually, that's not in the Constitution. The constitution defines the U.S. organization. It does not get into non-US company issues.


Again - you might want to revisit the 14th amendment. It does not say organizations are required to serve everyone. The Constitution and the amendments deal with the Government - not private companies.

The one line that you appear to have correct is about laws - not the same as the Constitution.

At least based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.
"While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, ..."



You have an interesting take. But your argument fails in trying to relate what you want to the Constitution.

EDIT: Spelling and links

The OP was correct in spirit, but it's the commerce clause that has been used to enforce non-discriminatory access, rather than the 14th amendment. Even under those laws, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is allowable for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, AKA not discriminating against members of a protected class because they are a member of that class.

With respect to places of public accommodation, there are forty states that have positioned "free speech" as an affirmative right for the individual, not as a prohibition on government restriction. Most of those abide by what are known as the Pruneyard Rules, from a case in California that requires places of public accommodation to allow individuals to exercise that affirmative right subject to reasonable limitations regarding time, manner, and method.. It is NOT an olley olley oxen freeo freeze peach neener-neener-you-can't-shut-me-up shield behind which one can hide.

edit: missing an important "not"

 

[Koga Onutalepo]

We can hope that everyone that had posts about Hunter Biden's laptop deleted and/or lost accounts responds, as well as anyone who was censored over COVID origins, COVID vaccine efficacy, and COVID vaccine safety.

What really needs to happen is that Section 230 needs to be applied as written, which is to say, you lose liability shield if you exercise editorial discretion, which Big Tech obviously has done, and still does to this day. In lawsuits to date Federal judges have interpreted Section 230 in a hugely broad manner that gives any tech platform the right to editorialize at will but retain their liability shield. As a result lots of politicians want to remove the shield entirely, which is a lot of Republicans, but they are wrong to do so, for that shield protects anything goes sites like Gab and 4Chan.

Freedom of speech as a principle means freedom to offend, and freedom to lie. ACLU used to understand this, as did most Democrats in the 1960s, but not any more.

All you've proven is that it remains as ever impossible to attack Section 230 without lying.

 

[alisonken1]

The OP was correct in spirit, but it's the commerce clause that has been used to enforce non-discriminatory access, rather than the 14th amendment. Even under those laws, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is allowable for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, AKA discriminating against members of a protected class because they are a member of that class.
<snip>

I had put something like that while I was drafting the post - but couldn't find the reference I was looking for (old-man brain fart), so took it out and left the constitution part.

Thanks for finding that.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Well, let's be clear here: the Constitution DOES say that if you run a public (as is "open to the general public", not a stock-public one) company, you are required to serve everyone.

It says no such thing. Businesses in general are allowed to refuse service, with few exceptions. Consider that there needed to be a special law to say that you cant refuse service just because the customer is black. If refusing service in general was already forbidden then they wouldnt have needed a law forbidding that specific case.

And if you still think otherwise, perhaps you would be good enough to quote word for word that specific text that you think requires businesses to serve everyone.

 

[JMTronicHobbyist]

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's assuming they really don't know, and aren't just malicious liars.

 

[graylshaped]

That's assuming they really don't know, and aren't just malicious liars.

"Never attribute to ignorance what can reasonably be assumed to be rapacious greed."

 

[JMTronicHobbyist]

I'm glad they're finally sooo concerned with free-market competition, but on a related note, if the people overwhelmingly want Nazi propaganda in their social media won't the magical hand of the free market punish those sites which won't allow it? Seems like you shouldn't need dirty government regulations to tell the sparkling clean business world what to do when consumer choice is obviously the only legitimate tool for influencing business practice!

 

[Tijger]

Violated what law?

The law that says "Thou shalt not criticize the glorious leader and King for Life of the United States, Donald Trump or any of his followers and supporters"
And since the King decides what is law and legal in the US now he doesnt even need to write any law.

 

[CardcaptorRLH85]

what happens if someone posts hate speech that is illegal on these platforms? Who is liable if law enforcement is involved?

United States free speech exceptions: Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.

Hate speech is specifically not illegal in the US. Also, for any actually illegal speech, the speaker/writer of the speech is liable, not the platform to which they posted it.

 

[CardcaptorRLH85]

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 government has tried its hand at forcing tests to be allowed to access civic authority before. It went poorly. The two major problems with such a test are first, who will create it and secondly, who will grade it? If the Trump administration were to create such a test would it have questions like, "Who won the 2020 election?" This is only slightly paranoid since it's been said that this very question has been asked to people applying for senior intelligence agency and FBI jobs in the last month.

 

[CardcaptorRLH85]

I think that everyone with a bit of time should submit a comment telling the FTC how much of a waste of time this is. (Either that or pointing out the current "censorship" of Xitter/Truth Social.) I've submitted my comment, let's see who ends up with more comments on their side.

 

[mikeschr]

OK, let's start with X/Twitter, which is notorious for censoring people's posts and then move onto Truth Social, which does the same thing.

Didn't you know, the people who are censored on Twitter and Truth Social aren't real Americans.

 

[scrimbul]

1. That would be undemocratic.
and more importantly:
2. The constitution violators are often not doing so ignorantly.

More to the point (this is why Democrats need even a section of their own factions and voting blocs to move to make this decision for the Democratic leadership BEFORE the leadership solidifies its opposition stance in the next few years)

You can be the Good Guys or have a functioning Democracy, you can't do both. Especially when considering Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance to its logical conclusion.

To wit: a theoretical Project 2032 that takes 2025, starts with the exact opposite of it (so essentially the end of the Obama Administration at 2015 but not necessarily intending to carry on where it left off like nothing happened) and then must decide whether:

A) it resets the playing field using prior retaliatory anti-democratic authoritarian means and the MAGA's own corrupted government, which will necessarily restore and revert a whole shitload of precedent MAGA just discarded, is going to discard, and a lot of infrastructure that will have to be rebuilt in a hurry by whoever remains of who was fired by Trump in the 2016 and 2024 administrations.

A also necessitates punishment or reduction of the voting rights of the 77 million who cast their votes for Trump, declaring the GOP a domestic terrorist organization for resembling Russia too closely in behavior and rhetoric, and essentially creating second-class citizens in a Reconstruction 2.0 after a second Nuremburg Trials.

This will only work for 50 years if that, give or take a couple decades if you're willing to imprison and break up almost the entirety of Silicon Valley.

OR

B) You can try to be The Good Guys, do none of these things, pretend nothing happened, hold free and fair elections with Citizens United in place, the First Amendment un-re-amended to more effectively address right-wing political co-option of language to influence disaffected youth and low-info voters with toxic identity markers, and lose again in 8-16 years because you didn't shoot the Nazis.

You cannot have a happy ending to this story where your podunk right wing voter doesn't both get thrown under the bus by MAGA and thrown under the bus again by an authoritarian left temporary government to hand back off to a functioning Democratic president and House/Senate scrubbed of any conservative institutional knowledge (plus purging the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, Fox News and most of the conservative blogosphere burnt to the ground including Twitter/Reddit/YouTube/Facebook). You will lose a few states in this process, namely most of the Southeast if you go this route. (Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia. Virginia would have to be held necessarily because the Capitol is located there, until Washington D.C. is relocated into a similar governing district either in NYC itself or somewhere in California, Washington, Oregon, or possibly Colorado. That necessarily means running a lot of MAGA voters out of those respective states.)

The time for that sort of drastic action to get that happy ending was at the start of the Biden Presidency or the second half of the Obama Administration. It's unobtainable now, there's too many non-patriotic right wingers to count on them to 'wake up' and distinguishing between soldiers and civilians there is dangerous while their name was on a 2016 or 2024 ballot and their social media history exists.

I don't think until a credible, sizable faction of the Democrats are willing to blow off the current DNC leadership structure entirely and start properly pushing memes about the USA being a 'failed state' (which it 100% meets that definition now) anything will happen. I don't think you'll get proper momentum to push the old guard aside sufficiently until after the mid-terms are a fraudulent blowout in favor of the GOP. Hoarding resources and quietly courting donors along these lines outside of the DNC's communication lines is essential here.

Considering who the GOP just pardoned, there should be a serious left wing push to pardon Luigi as well. Dangerous, but the only way to really maintain engagement at this stage of exhaustion (as no one in politics really had a chance to recover from the 2016-2020 term)

 

[omarsidd]

I'll believe them if they start with Xitter.

 

[Zontar]

Online platforms can simply auto-tag online speech with a variety of tags for different kinds of moderation scenarios and provide people with filters so they can see what they want.

This skirts the censorship issue and still lets people feel safe online.

Translation: "This lets us Nazi freely online because people who don't like Nazis won't be able to see our posts." KGFY.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

 

[Nature Lover]

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.

Xitter as well.
Do this.

 

[theSeb]

Violated what law?

This is what I am confused about the most and what the far right does not understand. My freedom of speech (or a company’s) means that I don’t have to enable or host your speech.

 

[98_hendersonbay@329]

There used to be in place an FCC "Fairness Doctrine" when most publicly available media were either print or broadcast. The print media was/is unlicensed and can say whatever; broadcast media are licensed, and after WWII, up until the Reagan administration, the Fairness Doctrine, though controversial (at least to right wingers) was enforced. Great article in Wikipedia on the Fairness Doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine None of these issues are new, but seems to me the slant has been the same all along. It was the Republicans that did away with the Fairness Doctrine, exactly to protect right-wing radio stations from having to provide alternate points of view. Who censors who here??

 

[graylshaped]

Hate speech is specifically not illegal in the US. Also, for any actually illegal speech, the speaker/writer of the speech is liable, not the platform to which they posted it.

It should also be said freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.

 

[graylshaped]

There used to be in place an FCC "Fairness Doctrine" when most publicly available media were either print or broadcast. The print media was/is unlicensed and can say whatever; broadcast media are licensed, and after WWII, up until the Reagan administration, the Fairness Doctrine, though controversial (at least to right wingers) was enforced. Great article in Wikipedia on the Fairness Doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine None of these issues are new, but seems to me the slant has been the same all along. It was the Republicans that did away with the Fairness Doctrine, exactly to protect right-wing radio stations from having to provide alternate points of view. Who censors who here??

It was always on shaky First Amendment grounds, thing A. Thing B, it only applied to use of public, licensed airways.

Be very careful about suggesting the government should have a say in the content sent over licensed broadcast spectra.

 

[s73v3r]

What really needs to happen is that Section 230 needs to be applied as written, which is to say, you lose liability shield if you exercise editorial discretion

Literally nothing in Section 230 prevents that. It literally says they can moderate however they see fit.

In lawsuits to date Federal judges have interpreted Section 230 in a hugely broad manner that gives any tech platform the right to editorialize at will but retain their liability shield

Which they should. Your problem is not with Section 230, it's with the First Amendment.

. As a result lots of politicians want to remove the shield entirely, which is a lot of Republicans, but they are wrong to do so, for that shield protects anything goes sites like Gab and 4Chan.

Illegal content is still illegal.

Freedom of speech as a principle means freedom to offend

No, it doesn't.

, and freedom to lie.

No, not in principle. If anything, lying is anti-free speech.

ACLU used to understand this, as did most Democrats in the 1960s, but not any more.

Wrong again. I also have the freedom of association to decide I don't want your crap on my site because you decided you wanted to "offend" and decided to lie and use bigoted slurs.

 

[graylshaped]

Freedom of speech as a principle means freedom to offend.

And here you are. Exercising your rights. Yay, you.

 

[singularity6]

This administration seems to get things quite confused. They want to allow whatever bullshit on social media platforms, while killing net neutrality.

 

[KobayashiSaru]

Right, and while you're at it don't use a credit card because that's not a necessary part of modern life either. And don't drive a car, that's a choice! Don't use the Internet if you don't like your ISP's behavior. Etc.

The colossal power imbalance between giant unaccountable companies - whether they have an actual monopoly or not -- and individuals is a major problem in American society. I'm not going to comment on other nations' problems because I live in the US and its problems are mine, unfortunately.

Clowns like Trump and Musk aren't going to fix the power imbalance. Your post though is exactly the kind of horseshit that led to the present problems. Companies aren't people and they need to be regulated based on their power, IMO - not their actions.

If social media is as integral and necessary a part of your daily life as using a bank card and driving a car, then I truly pity how sad your life must be.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

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

If even the government isnt sure what is illegal then how are people supposed to know how to follow the law?

 

[Stinkles]

View: https://youtu.be/NltEp2uxL9Q?si=elpBDmx0P9FVjjtG
I will enjoy when you criticize your government and they arrest you and then I will fight with you for unfettered free speech.

At the risk of my YT algo getting contaminated with breadtuber bullshit I watched it.

This entire argument is literally just the meme-




Hey man if you want to say the N-word just say it. If you want to be racist just do it. The government isn't standing right outside your door with their armed goons ready to pop you for saying Nazi rhetoric. You control the buttons you press.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

If social media is as integral and necessary a part of your daily life as using a bank card and driving a car, then I truly pity how sad your life must be.

Spoken like someone who doesn't sell, market, or produce a thing. There are whole swathes of businesses, especially small cottage affairs, that rely on various and sundry social media for exposure and therefore survival. Does it suck? Yes. Can we go back to handbills, posters, advertising in the local paper, getting a small display in the general store? Not really. The world has moved on.

 

[Hmnhntr]

Are you a test subject?

That is an opinion piece from someone with no credentials and who is an anti trans crusader. Bring better receipts

It cites like four of its claims by actually linking to the sources, and the rest is "we all know...". It even acknowledges that one of the few sources it cites is from a non-peer-reviewed study, but just attacks the concept of peer review. Also worth noting how whenever the data is "unclear" on something pro-trans, the appropriate thing is to hold off on taking action and doubt the idea, yet whenever the data is "unclear" on anything anti-trans, the appropriate thing to do is instead to carefully consider the idea. Then there's hilarious claims of contradiction like the idea that a "hostile social environment for trans people" cannot coexist with the claim that "society is becoming more accepting of trans people". The claim is that suicidality is partially due to a hostile environment, and that that factor is decreasing as society becomes more accepting. Literally nothing about that is contradictory, or even hard to grasp. Or straight-up ignoring how the "more permissive" red states might have worse mental health outcomes for trans people not because more access to gender-affirming care hurts them, but maybe, I dunno, the far more socially hostile environment in mostly conservative states?

About the quality of 'source' I expect from a site with a name like "Reality's Last Stand". Surely a totally unbiased source for scientific information relating to culture war issues. For God's sake, the author literally talks about how he was pushed out of the organizations he is speaking out against, as were the other authors he cites in his favor. It would be difficult to find a less reliable source for this argument.

 

[The Wonderful Wizard]

Disregard, double post

 

[Matthew J.]

Submitted my 02¢. Not that it's likely to make a difference to these bigoted buffoons. But at least I'm on record...

 

[The Wonderful Wizard]

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

That is a problem, though, when a small number of private companies own nearly everything. In meatspce, there are towns where there aren’t any public spaces that are actually publicly owned, with parks etc. being owned by a residents’ association or homeowners associations. That means that while you theoretically have the right to protest, you can either stand on a verge where you’re not distracting traffic, or you can ask for permission to block a road with a march.

While none of the online platforms are that dominant yet, their business model is to try to get there: Google is probably the closest, since if MS ever give up on bing then they’d be pretty close to achieving that for search, and if Yandex and the Chinese search engines were banned as security threats too they’d be there.

As for solutions, the only (albeit implausible) ones I can think of within the American constitution as applied is to make political neutrality a requirement for limited liability (as it is for tax exemption) since limited liability a benefit you could agree to trade away rights for, or to break up any company that got too dominant. In a sane country, the simplest way to do it would be to say that any political spending (including in kind) by a corporate person has to be explicitly authorised by the ultimate beneficial owners and is counted towards the owner’s spending cap, with the caps adjusted so that the total cap for everyone who can’t vote in the relevant election is less than the total cap for all relevant voters, and so all enrolled voters can practically afford to spend to the cap.

 

[Magius]

Polygraphs and loyalty oaths--no. Purity tests are a silly idea.

As to your second part, people tend to be on their best behavior when they are trying to get a job. They aren't going to get better after they are hired.

Ok. I respect your views. How about you propose a workable idea on your end?
After all, it is so easy to poke holes on ideas when all you state is "oh, so silly" without any real backing.

Also, "purity tests", as you label them, have been used effectively for decades to keep track of potential issues within the IC.

And I absolutely disagree with you on your second statement. Only those that don't give a damn or are made to not give a damn about the job they undertake behave like that. Quite the dim view you have on people. I guess people that take pride in their job are few and far in between.

 

[graylshaped]

Ok. I respect your views. How about you propose a workable idea on your end?
After all, it is so easy to poke holes on ideas when all you state is "oh, so silly" without any real backing.

Also, "purity tests", as you label them, have been used effectively for decades to keep track of potential issues within the IC.

And I absolutely disagree with you on your second statement. Only those that don't give a damn or are made to not give a damn about the job they undertake behave like that. Quite the dim view you have on people. I guess people that take pride in their job are few and far in between.

Such a black and white world you perceive. My world is analog with all manners of shades, hues, and tints. Actual people with strengths and weaknesses, too, not some forced fit based on what I wish.

Or what you wish, more to the point. My view on people is realistic and if anything, leans towards the optimistic ideal. I want people to be successful while also being fairly clear-eyed that some people are not going to find that success in the jobs they are pursuing--or doing.

And, since we are disagreeing with each other, people who take pride in their work are a dime a dozen. People who take well-deserved pride in quality work are not as common. Based on the tenor of your posts, it is quite likely you are among the eighty percent of people who consider themselves in the top twenty percent of performers.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

And I absolutely disagree with you on your second statement. Only those that don't give a damn or are made to not give a damn about the job they undertake behave like that. Quite the dim view you have on people. I guess people that take pride in their job are few and far in between.

It's the fundamental difference between "job" and "career", "work to live" and "live to work", modes of self-identification, etc. Also, some of us had the Puritan work ethic beaten into us more successfully than others.

 

[graylshaped]

It's the fundamental difference between "job" and "career", "work to live" and "live to work", modes of self-identification, etc. Also, some of us had the Puritan work ethic beaten into us more successfully than others.

The principle "the house is testimony to the carpenter" applies. You are defined by the quality of the things you do.

 

[JohnDeL]

The principle "the house is testimony to the carpenter" applies. You are defined by the quality of the things you do.

Only in those positions where those about you care about the quality of what you do. But when your bosses treat you as an interchangeable cog, well, they can expect the sort of quality that they'd get from a cog.