Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ToxiClay t1_j6ombz8 wrote

This very quickly runs into a whole mess of politics, but the very short form is that, as it stands, Facebook can decide all by itself that you no longer get to speak on their platform -- they can ban you, they can restrict your ability to post, etc.

The considered motion would say "Facebook, you can't do that anymore, unless we say you can/order you to."

9

whiskeyriver0987 t1_j6p80in wrote

There's a mess of constitutional issues with the government stepping in like this and essentially compelling speach and unlimited public access to what's legally a private platform.

6

ToxiClay t1_j6p92qf wrote

This is true; however, there are some strong ramifications to Facebook and Twitter being basically the public square of the Internet that aren't properly addressed by simply stating that the First Amendment always constrains the government and frees private actors to do as they will.

The platform vs publisher dichotomy embodied in the Section 230 debate is one such place where they resurface.

1

Halvus_I t1_j6pjhwf wrote

> here are some strong ramifications to Facebook and Twitter being basically the public square of the Internet

They are not a 'public square' in any way shape or form, that the internets job, alone. Anyone pushing this angle has an agenda.

3

[deleted] t1_j6oq9o0 wrote

[removed]

6

fredmull1973 t1_j6oqhqg wrote

If a company is banned from banning someone cuz of hateful speech etc then it’s game on for whatever

3

EvenSpoonier t1_j6ox4k6 wrote

Basically they want to undermine freedom of association by forcing private entities to give a platform to Nazis.

6

tyler1128 t1_j6pjgmk wrote

I wouldn't call that undermining freedom of association. You don't have to follow and can block people on twitter, for example. Just because a nazi is there doesn't mean you also being there means you support nazis by association, that's nonsensical.

That said, section 230 should not be overturned, and doing so opens a whole host of problems. Companies not associated with the government should have the ability to do what they want with their platform, within the boundaries of law. The effects of social media and its dominance in information, discourse and it's algorithmic attempt to keep you in a bubble is likely not good for society, and will have consequences we still can't foresee.

−1

bcocoloco t1_j6p5oyk wrote

What a lovely unbiased answer. It definitely wouldn’t be something like the people kicked off Twitter for covid “misinformation” that were later proven right.

−5

EvenSpoonier t1_j6pety6 wrote

Seeing as that hasn't happened, I'm not sure it works for an example.

6

bcocoloco t1_j6pjm8e wrote

Alex berenson is exhibit A. He was kicked off for covid misinformation, then later sued Twitter and won. He forced them to reinstate his account because what he said was known scientific fact at the time and not misinformation.

So yes it absolutely did happen.

−7

[deleted] t1_j6p9sxj wrote

[deleted]

3

bcocoloco t1_j6pixet wrote

Alex Berenson was removed from Twitter for covid misinformation. He later sued Twitter and won. He forced them to reinstate his account because it was proven that what he was saying was not misinformation.

−3

froznwind t1_j6oqkru wrote

Deplatforming is just another word for banning, disallowing a person from using their platform. Usually for conduct using said platform.

4

DasAdolfHipster t1_j6pchvh wrote

In short this would be preventing online social media platforms banning people from using their services for violations of their terms of service outside of their platform.

IE you said something on Facebook, which got you banned from twitter because it violated twitters rules.

Are you for or against? If you're for, then you might want to lean into how no violation of the agreement between the user and the service has occurred. If you're against, you'd lean into the rights of companies to choose who they do business with.

2