RIP Swiss Family Robinson

[ImBillT]

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out.

If it hasn’t been thrown out already, O doubt that the suite gets very far. It would probably require some legislation that wouldn’t pass the current congress to prevent it from happening again.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If they want platform protection, then they should not be able to censor political speech by one party, but nothing the other. Furthermore, with Amazon’s servers, it really doesn’t seem like forced speech. If I rent a space for use as a shoe store, and I’m allowed to put a sign on the store front, is it forced speech is the sign says “Trump for President”? I didn’t force the property management company to say anything at all.

Your hypo is offf. To make it fit, the landlord would put a “no political signs” term in the lease. And now you are saying the government should use the force of law to deny the landlord the right to set the terms of his lease?

 

[ImBillT]

Your hypo is offf. To make it fit, the landlord would put a “no political signs” term in the lease. And now you are saying the government should use the force of law to deny the landlord the right to set the terms of his lease?

He can’t set the terms to “no blacks allowed”, and I’m not convinced that he should be allowed to set them to “no conservatives allowed” or “no Republican signs allowed”. I’m not convinced that Amazon would shut down a server lessee for having a Democrat friendly website.

And Amazon wasn’t the ones doing the speaking. It’s one thing for a baker to refuse to put something on a cake that the baker does not want to put on the cake, or refuse to attend an event that the baker does not want to attend. It is very different for the baker to have a cake under glass, and then say “you can eat my cake in your home, but not at a wedding”. Amazon wasn’t asked to design Parler, or participate, or put their name on anything. They sold Parler the same service that they provide to many other businesses, and then pulled the rug out when they decided that they didn’t like who was using the service.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I doubt that Obama’s agreement with his aide was as formal as you suggested, but I could be wrong.

He did tweet some himself after his first term. Twitter was formed in 06’ so its relatively new. It’s evolve, how we use social media had evolved.

To be clear I think the point of our government is to represent the whole country and therefore the off the cuff nature of social media is dangerous. Doesn’t matter which party does it.

Obama Starts Tweeting for Himself

President Barack Obama sends his first tweet.

gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com

 

[ImBillT]

He did tweet some himself after his first term. Twitter was formed in 06’ so its relatively new. It’s evolve, how we use social media had evolved.

To be clear I think the point of our government is to represent the whole country and therefore the off the cuff nature of social media is dangerous. Doesn’t matter which party does it.

Obama Starts Tweeting for Himself

President Barack Obama sends his first tweet.

gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com

Maybe it’s dangerous, maybe it isn’t. At the time, I was uncomfortable with the thought that Obama could tweet as POTUS long after he was actually POTUS. That never happened, and in suppose it’s a silly concern. It didn’t bother me a lot, but I found it a little weird.

I did not know that his aides had anything to do with it, and Ive never used Twitter, so if a tweet didn’t make the news, I’ve never heard it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

He can’t set the terms to “no blacks allowed”, and I’m not convinced that he should be allowed to set them to “no conservatives allowed” or “no Republican signs allowed”. I’m not convinced that Amazon would shut down a server lessee for having a Democrat friendly website.

And Amazon wasn’t the ones doing the speaking. It’s one thing for a baker to refuse to put something on a cake that the baker does not want to put on the cake, or refuse to attend an event that the baker does not want to attend. It is very different for the baker to have a cake under glass, and then say “you can eat my cake in your home, but not at a wedding”. Amazon wasn’t asked to design Parler, or participate, or put their name on anything. They sold Parler the same service that they provide to many other businesses, and then pulled the rug out when they decided that they didn’t like who was using the service.

There are federal laws that protect people from discrimination in public accommodations basis race, etc. politics is not one of the protected areas.

I get that you don’t like what Amazon did, so take your business elsewhere - we don’t need govt to begin to regulate speech - pro or con.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Maybe it’s dangerous, maybe it isn’t. At the time, I was uncomfortable with the thought that Obama could tweet as POTUS long after he was actually POTUS. That never happened, and in suppose it’s a silly concern. It didn’t bother me a lot, but I found it a little weird.

The accounts are now transferred and follower cleared which is the correct protocol IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There are federal laws that protect people from discrimination in public accommodations basis race, etc. politics is not one of the protected areas.

I get that you don’t like what Amazon did, so take your business elsewhere - we don’t need govt to begin to regulate speech - pro or con.

If Amazon banned porn on its servers and Parler had been used to distribute porn and had done the same thing, refusing to moderate or remove content, would we be having this conversation. Does that change the calculus.

Legit question to both you and @ImBillT.

(Trying to remove the politics for a second to see if I think about the issue the same way)

 

[Wildabeest]

If Amazon banned porn on its servers and Parler had been used to distribute porn and had done the same thing, refusing to moderate or remove content, would we be having this conversation. Does that change the calculus.

Legit question to both you and @ImBillT.

(Trying to remove the politics for a second to see if I think about the issue the same way)

Just when I decide to jump out of this thread, you have to bring up porn...

 

[ImBillT]

There are federal laws that protect people from discrimination in public accommodations basis race, etc. politics is not one of the protected areas.

I get that you don’t like what Amazon did, so take your business elsewhere - we don’t need govt to begin to regulate speech - pro or con.

Again, common carrier laws exist because of the mess that we would have on our hands if Christians had to use phone company X, conservatives had to use phone company Y, liberals had to use phone company Z, and none of them could call each other. Thankfully, with the Amazon server issue, at least there isn’t a separate internet required for non-Amazon servers, so there is one less wrinkle there. I still believe that there is a fair bit of similarity to server farms and the common carrier issue.

The FB, Twitter thing is a different nut related to platform protections.

A few years ago, I would probably have been on the other side, but I’ve begun to think that a handful of companies now have so much power to manipulate what so many people can say and see that I believe “Big Tech” censorship to be almost as dangerous as the government regulating speech.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Just when I decide to jump out of this thread, you have to bring up porn...

Just be glad he didn't specify midget porn...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Again, common carrier laws exist because of the mess that we would have on our hands if Christians had to use phone company X, conservatives had to use phone company Y, liberals had to use phone company Z, and none of them could call each other. Thankfully, with the Amazon server issue, at least there isn’t a separate internet required for non-Amazon servers, so there is one less wrinkle there. I still believe that there is a fair bit of similarity to server farms and the common carrier issue.

The FB, Twitter thing is a different nut related to platform protections.

A few years ago, I would probably have been on the other side, but I’ve begun to think that a handful of companies now have so much power to manipulate what so many people can say and see that I believe “Big Tech” censorship to be almost as dangerous as the government regulating speech.

I can go buy a server plug it in and host my own content. It’s actually not all the expensive or difficult.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Again, common carrier laws exist because of the mess that we would have on our hands if Christians had to use phone company X, conservatives had to use phone company Y, liberals had to use phone company Z, and none of them could call each other. Thankfully, with the Amazon server issue, at least there isn’t a separate internet required for non-Amazon servers, so there is one less wrinkle there. I still believe that there is a fair bit of similarity to server farms and the common carrier issue.

The FB, Twitter thing is a different nut related to platform protections.

A few years ago, I would probably have been on the other side, but I’ve begun to think that a handful of companies now have so much power to manipulate what so many people can say and see that I believe “Big Tech” censorship to be almost as dangerous as the government regulating speech.

And here is where we get to talk a about net neutrality.

I don’t like your content so I can choose to throttle your bandwidth.

Those gifs are gonna suck on your at 56k

 

[antlerradar]

It already does, and that’s the point @POTUS on Twitter.

Biden and Obama didn’t actually tweet themselves it was an aide.

Trump did, that’s problematic.

The issue will get worse as millennials take office, needs to be sorted out now, IMHO.

Having a politician do their own tweets is a good thing for the voter, I would much rather get info unfiltered or sanitized.
It is debatable if doing your own tweets is good for the politician. Last president would be exhibit A that it is not.

 

[antlerradar]

The right to free speech is between the people and their government and has nothing to do with people and their social media service - or any other private relationship.

Many prominent Democrats called for the deplatforming of Trump. As they were gaining control of government the social media services did the deplatforming and the Democrats praised the move. Is there an argument that the social media services are acting on behalf of Government?

 

[ImBillT]

If Amazon banned porn on its servers and Parler had been used to distribute porn and had done the same thing, refusing to moderate or remove content, would we be having this conversation. Does that change the calculus.

Legit question to both you and @ImBillT.

(Trying to remove the politics for a second to see if I think about the issue the same way)

Firstly, for the most part I think we’d be talking about new legislation to reform platform protections in the case of Twitter, FB, Parler, etc. and new legislation in terms of whether or not server farms and various other services should have some form of regulations similar to common carriers with the Amazon denying Parler service issue. In neither case have I really proposed an exact framework for the remedy, and I’m sure there would be various things that companies were allowed to do while falling within their rights.

On to your porn and Amazon/Parler issue. Maybe. You’ve sort of combined both the platform protection and the denial of service into a single scenario by throwing moderation into the Amazon/Parler thing. we can remove the wrinkle by just pretending that Parler was a porn site. In terms of whether or not I think Amazon should be allowed to deny service to porn site , I think there would be reasons and circumstances for that to go either way. The government already regulates vulgarity, pornography and sex work despite the purveyors of such frequently claiming that it violates their right to freedom of speech, which of course usually gets expanded to expression. The idea that a new law regarding Amazon’s denial of service, or platform protections would have to prevent a company from moderating against pornography or including a pornography ban in their terms of service would be flawed. It seems like an obvious exception that would probably be included to one degree or another. Additionally, outside of that realm there are usually loopholes regarding religious or moral objection, and there should be some here. Generally, I don’t like the idea that government should force an individual or a business to violate their conscience or be punished, even if I think that their conscience is a bit unreasonable. On the other hand, things can definitely get too unreasonable. If you manufacture sign board(the raw material) and don’t want your sign board to be used to make political signs, then you probably shouldn’t be in the sign board business. But if you make custom signs, and are uncomfortable with what someone wants you or your company to put on the sign, you’re one step closer to the issue and I can see a need for your objection to be allowed. If manufacturer lenses, and don’t want one of your lenses to end up in a camera that shoots pornography, you probably shouldn’t manufacture lenses. If you’re a photographer and don’t want to shoot pornography, I think we all see where you’re coming from and why an exception needs to be in place. In Amazon’s case, they could easily say that they aren’t selling a server, but rather they are leasing server space or providing hosting services and thus retain more rights than someone selling sign board or lenses. However, if you’re in the real estate business, you can’t claim that because you’re leasing a property rather than selling it, that you don’t have to lease it to black or homosexuals. You probably can decline to lease it to a pornography business. For Amazon denying service I think there are two possible angles. 1) Does leasing server space or providing web hosting need to have laws similar to common carrier laws? Or
2) Should political speech receive protections similar to those that we currently offer certain protected classes ie. race, sex, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation.

Really, the answer to the above two proposals may be “no” it causes more problems than it solves.

Now I’ll just apply your porn question to platform protections and leave Amazon and their servers out of it. Yes it changes the calculus. Again, we regulate vulgarity, nudity pornography etc. in public spaces, why would we then deny a platform the opportunity to self police such issues if they saw fit? There would be plenty of simple enough tests to determine if pornographic content was the reason that someone was moderated. If FB moderates an account by hiding posts, labeling, locking, blocking etc. and claims that it’s related to graphic, violent, pornographic content etc. but the exact level of said problem is otherwise allowed all over FB, then clearly they were moderating something else. If they chose to moderate something that a new law on platform protection said was outside the scope of allowed moderations, then they would simply be considered a publisher, rather than a platform, and become open to the same legal action that TV, radio, and newspapers are already subject to today.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Having a politician do their own tweets is a good thing for the voter, I would much rather get info unfiltered or sanitized.
It is debatable if doing your own tweets is good for the politician. Last president would be exhibit A that it is not.

Politician yes, President or Gov no.

I don’t think it’s good for the voter or the state/ nation at all.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Many prominent Democrats called for the deplatforming of Trump. As they were gaining control of government the social media services did the deplatforming and the Democrats praised the move. Is there an argument that the social media services are acting on behalf of Government?

Not under our current laws.

 

[stevejfarms]

It shouldn’t matter what you think of Trump or what your politics are to see that censorship from a company that receives platform protections flies in the face of why platform protections exist.

This.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Firstly, for the most part I think we’d be talking about new legislation to reform platform protections in the case of Twitter, FB, Parler, etc. and new legislation in terms of whether or not server farms and various other services should have some form of regulations similar to common carriers with the Amazon denying Parler service issue. In neither case have I really proposed an exact framework for the remedy, and I’m sure there would be various things that companies were allowed to do while falling within their rights.

On to your porn and Amazon/Parler issue. Maybe. You’ve sort of combined both the platform protection and the denial of service into a single scenario by throwing moderation into the Amazon/Parler thing. we can remove the wrinkle by just pretending that Parler was a porn site. In terms of whether or not I think Amazon should be allowed to deny service to porn site , I think there would be reasons and circumstances for that to go either way. The government already regulates vulgarity, pornography and sex work despite the purveyors of such frequently claiming that it violates their right to freedom of speech, which of course usually gets expanded to expression. The idea that a new law regarding Amazon’s denial of service, or platform protections would have to prevent a company from moderating against pornography or including a pornography ban in their terms of service would be flawed. It seems like an obvious exception that would probably be included to one degree or another. Additionally, outside of that realm there are usually loopholes regarding religious or moral objection, and there should be some here. Generally, I don’t like the idea that government should force an individual or a business to violate their conscience or be punished, even if I think that their conscience is a bit unreasonable. On the other hand, things can definitely get too unreasonable. If you manufacture sign board(the raw material) and don’t want your sign board to be used to make political signs, then you probably shouldn’t be in the sign board business. But if you make custom signs, and are uncomfortable with what someone wants you or your company to put on the sign, you’re one step closer to the issue and I can see a need for your objection to be allowed. If manufacturer lenses, and don’t want one of your lenses to end up in a camera that shoots pornography, you probably shouldn’t manufacture lenses. If you’re a photographer and don’t want to shoot pornography, I think we all see where you’re coming from and why an exception needs to be in place. In Amazon’s case, they could easily say that they aren’t selling a server, but rather they are leasing server space or providing hosting services and thus retain more rights than someone selling sign board or lenses. However, if you’re in the real estate business, you can’t claim that because you’re leasing a property rather than selling it, that you don’t have to lease it to black or homosexuals. You probably can decline to lease it to a pornography business. For Amazon denying service I think there are two possible angles. 1) Does leasing server space or providing web hosting need to have laws similar to common carrier laws? Or
2) Should political speech receive protections similar to those that we currently offer certain protected classes ie. race, sex, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation.

Really, the answer to the above two proposals may be “no” it causes more problems than it solves.

Now I’ll just apply your porn question to platform protections and leave Amazon and their servers out of it. Yes it changes the calculus. Again, we regulate vulgarity, nudity pornography etc. in public spaces, why would we then deny a platform the opportunity to self police such issues if they saw fit? There would be plenty of simple enough tests to determine if pornographic content was the reason that someone was moderated. If FB moderates an account by hiding posts, labeling, locking, blocking etc. and claims that it’s related to graphic, violent, pornographic content etc. but the exact level of said problem is otherwise allowed all over FB, then clearly they were moderating something else. If they chose to moderate something that a new law on platform protection said was outside the scope of allowed moderations, then they would simply be considered a publisher, rather than a platform, and become open to the same legal action that TV, radio, and newspapers are already subject to today.

Appreciate you taking the time to respond, and being willing to explain your thinking via a bit different subject. Definitely helped me see your points better.

Lots to chew on and think about.