This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: What to do about social media corporations?  (Read 2160 times)

SHARK

  • Great White Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2676
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2021, 03:08:07 PM »
Well the problem circles back around to the issue that the American system has been thoroughly infiltrated and broken.  An impartial Judiciary was supposed to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check and supposed to curb these sorts of things.  They've been captured by corporations and side with their masters against the people and constitution when the corporations are blatantly abusing the rights and protections of the people.

If you could reasonably expect to have your 1st amendment rights protected by a judge in a case against Twitter then no reform of 230 would be needed.  But Twitter just kills you with its megabucks in a giant PR smear, erasing your ability to interface with modern society, and intimidating/disbarring any lawyer that dares to represent you.  If any of that fails they just shop around for a judge they've purchased.

I don't think the problem is the judges. The problem is the current law. Under the law, a social media website is a privately-owned service -- no different than this forum. If Pundit wants to ban me or delete my posts, the law supports him. It's his site, and I can't successfully sue him for violating my First Amendment rights if he bans me. It's the same with Twitter. It's a private site, and people can't demand the right to post there - any more than I can post signs on your lawn.

If we want to change that, we have to reform the law in Congress.

From what I have heard from Robert Barnes, the problem is the judges in that they are refusing to enforce any of the existing laws in regard to internet companies.

People like Facebook and Twitter are able to get away with things that legacy media like the New York times is not able to.  They are able to make defamatory statements and policies that would get any other company sued.

How is that not a problem with judges.

Greetings!

I agree, Shasarak. The censorship and tyranny of the Big Tech companies is disgusting and outrageous--and it also represents a serious threat to freedom. When these companies engage in such policies, mechanisms should be in place for them to be fined severely, and sued into oblivion. Every time, in a blink, so they get it through their heads that they are not elite masters able to control everyone, and silence anyone they don't approve of.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
"Let Death and Fire Be Their Portion!"
"Delenda Est Parthia!"

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8671
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2021, 03:23:55 PM »
I don't think the problem is the judges. The problem is the current law. Under the law, a social media website is a privately-owned service -- no different than this forum. If Pundit wants to ban me or delete my posts, the law supports him. It's his site, and I can't successfully sue him for violating my First Amendment rights if he bans me. It's the same with Twitter. It's a private site, and people can't demand the right to post there - any more than I can post signs on your lawn.

If we want to change that, we have to reform the law in Congress.

From what I have heard from Robert Barnes, the problem is the judges in that they are refusing to enforce any of the existing laws in regard to internet companies.

People like Facebook and Twitter are able to get away with things that legacy media like the New York times is not able to.  They are able to make defamatory statements and policies that would get any other company sued.

How is that not a problem with judges.

As written, different laws apply to Facebook and Twitter compared to legacy media like the New York Times. The key difference is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Under Section 230, an information service provider like Twitter and Facebook is not treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information posted by a user of the service. It's not that judges are refusing to enforce existing laws - it's that existing laws are different.

But if Section 230 is simply repealed, then Facebook and Twitter will be motivated to be even *more* heavy-handed in moderation and banning, which is what many people are complaining about. I think it would be better to reform it instead.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 1746
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2021, 03:28:35 PM »
The politicians aren't going to do anything because they're money addicts in the pocket of big tech.

I am worried the situation will get much worse before it gets better.

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2021, 03:37:18 PM »


Repeal the 1996 law allowing consolidation of media, which was previously restricted

I guess you're talking about the Telecommunications Act of 1996? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

That had a huge number of changes - many of them considered beneficial to competition, though overall some think it was harmful. However, simply disallowing mergers only slows down the trend towards monopolies, it doesn't stop it. If smaller companies are less successful, then the larger companies will just slowly push them out of the market by spending rather than acquiring them. In any case, the 1996 law mostly only applies to television - and the topic is social media.

I think there are changes that can be made to streamline regulations in a way that favors small companies, but it is tricky.

I responded to a post about newspapers.  Surprised you missed that.

All that has to be done is get rid of cross-media ownership allowed by 1996 bill (and likely other branching bills too, as usual) while also requiring no owner has assets in more than one media market.

It’s not a spend problem.

Social media is not hard to solve either.  Getting people to push the “solve” button is harder.  That’s not the same thing, though
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Brad

  • No me gusta
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2544
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2021, 03:38:48 PM »
As I noted on this thread, under current law, private providers like Twitter and Facebook aren't legally required to accept everyone.

Yes, but better bake that gay wedding cake, right? You're a fucking joke.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2021, 03:43:07 PM »
I don't think the problem is the judges. The problem is the current law. Under the law, a social media website is a privately-owned service -- no different than this forum. If Pundit wants to ban me or delete my posts, the law supports him. It's his site, and I can't successfully sue him for violating my First Amendment rights if he bans me. It's the same with Twitter. It's a private site, and people can't demand the right to post there - any more than I can post signs on your lawn.

If we want to change that, we have to reform the law in Congress.

From what I have heard from Robert Barnes, the problem is the judges in that they are refusing to enforce any of the existing laws in regard to internet companies.

People like Facebook and Twitter are able to get away with things that legacy media like the New York times is not able to.  They are able to make defamatory statements and policies that would get any other company sued.

How is that not a problem with judges.

As written, different laws apply to Facebook and Twitter compared to legacy media like the New York Times. The key difference is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Under Section 230, an information service provider like Twitter and Facebook is not treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information posted by a user of the service. It's not that judges are refusing to enforce existing laws - it's that existing laws are different.

But if Section 230 is simply repealed, then Facebook and Twitter will be motivated to be even *more* heavy-handed in moderation and banning, which is what many people are complaining about. I think it would be better to reform it instead.

From your own quote:

The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Is that what you think has been happening?  Good faith?

Then you will need new laws that judges can then choose to ignore.
"There can be no middle ground with bigots. Bigots want to deny the rights and livelihood of people different from them. They want them to cease existing, either by going underground or by murdering them. There is no "let's meet in the middle" with that. To suggest there can be is ignorance" RPGNet

ArrozConLeche

  • No Más
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2021, 04:39:29 PM »
The brainlet above has a point. If a lawsuit can find that that the moderation policies are applied unequally, they could be held liable. I am not sure what that would mean in practical terms other than having to fork some money over and rewriting their TOS.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2021, 04:49:07 PM »
Incidentally, Ron Paul's Facebook seems to be working currently - he just posted, https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul

I don't know if that's better or worse. Like surviving a mob shakedown, at least they're gone, but they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8671
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2021, 04:55:44 PM »
From your own quote:

The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Is that what you think has been happening?  Good faith?

Then you will need new laws that judges can then choose to ignore.

I'm pretty sure my personal colloquial definition of "good faith" doesn't match the legal meaning. I really don't know what "good faith" would even mean in a practical sense for a giant corporation, much less how judges are supposed to enforce corporations to practice "good faith".

From my personal colloquial definition, I don't think it's possible for any giant corporation to act in "good faith". In order to protect their shareholders, an executive would hire a bunch of lawyers to interpret the law and give recommendations about how to avoid lawsuits. That report from lawyers will be read as some committee oversees writing a policy document. Some corporations are more ethical than others - but they are by their nature big, multi-headed beasts.

ArrozConLeche

  • No Más
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2021, 05:23:23 PM »
So far as I know, previously banned users have lost their cases in lower courts. The difference is that there hasn't been this unprecedented purging, on this scale in the past. Mayhap, the chances will be higher that someone was wrongfully purged who didn't violate the TOS (i.e. Ron Paul).

I am assuming that the plaintiffs were small fries without a lot of resources (deep pockets of their own or social support behind them).  That could change.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 05:28:18 PM by ArrozConLeche »

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2021, 05:31:40 PM »
I'm pretty sure my personal colloquial definition of "good faith" doesn't match the legal meaning. I really don't know what "good faith" would even mean in a practical sense for a giant corporation, much less how judges are supposed to enforce corporations to practice "good faith".

You dont know what good faith would mean in a practical sense?

No I guess not.
"There can be no middle ground with bigots. Bigots want to deny the rights and livelihood of people different from them. They want them to cease existing, either by going underground or by murdering them. There is no "let's meet in the middle" with that. To suggest there can be is ignorance" RPGNet

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 3109
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2021, 05:43:13 PM »
I recall the line about social media being something like "If you're not paying money for it, you're not the customer, you're the product." While it's a very simplified take on it, how would that apply to laws about discrimination as you're not a paying customer (those are the advertisers), you might even just be considered "loitering" on their site?

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 1746
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2021, 07:25:56 PM »
Make political affiliation a protected status like religion, ethnicity, etc. Sue big tech for discriminating against conservatives.

Alternately, conservatives could encourage interracial marriage with non-white people that share conservative values (which is pretty much the overwhelming majority of non-white people), adopt Chrislam (a real religion, btw) in order to make inroads with the Muslim community (who overwhelmingly hold conservative values regardless of who they vote for), etc etc etc and then use the influx of oppression points to sue big tech for racism by using the woke logic against them.

The woke are racist bigots and always will be, as Robin DiAngelo openly admits to, so the most efficient way to beat them at their own game is for conservatives to literally give up whiteness and then sue the woke bigots for their open racism.

(Obviously I'm being farcical here, but in today's clown world I wouldn't be surprised if this strategy actually worked. That's how far this political farce has come.)

rawma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2021, 07:51:34 PM »
Maybe net neutrality would help, at least to make alternatives feasible. Section 230 doesn't seem to be the actual obstacle; being able to sue Twitter would just mean Twitter would either vanish or become very bland to avoid liability. We need a way to break up any monopolies like the telephone one - forcing the monopoly to give access to small competitors. But it's not just the bandwidth that net neutrality might help with, but hosting and access through internet searches.

consolcwby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Feel the despair!
    • View Profile
Re: What to do about social media corporations?
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2021, 09:18:12 PM »
I figured I would put this info here instead of my usual bombastic posts. Interesting?
JACK'S EXPLAINATIONS: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690
JAMES' COMING UP NEXT: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1349792366786453511

Even the European leaders and the president of Mexico called @JACK out for that. So now @Jack after several days is now trying to justify his actions and explain himself. Sounds like he may have gotten a command from his board to clean up the mess. But it may be too late! THIS is something to keep an eye on, imho!

« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 09:19:43 PM by consolcwby »
-----------------------------------------------------------------------                    snip                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   https://youtu.be/Br3LRj2pwAs