Twitter GAME OVER - Section 230 Communication Decency Act (Free Speech)

[zantax]

@dantes

@zantax

at their expense

What are the expenses relating to allowing people to ask for petition signatures at a mall?

Security, floor space, utilities, restrooms, maintenance. What’s the expense on a twitter post?

[dantes]

No floor space was added, no security was added (if more security needed to be added on account of them, that would be rational to kick them out), no bathrooms were added, no maintenance was added.

Every tweet requires hard drive space, electricity to maintain it, bandwidth to deliver it. Every tweet adds to these requirements.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

The first amendment hasn’t been applied to social media sites by federal courts, yet, but I wouldn’t bet it won’t be. Kennedy for example went on record calling them the modern public square not long ago. States like California have asserted citizens have a right to speech on private property like malls a long time ago.

from Supreme Court decision is 'a constitutional coming out party' for social media

In his opinion, Kennedy said “cyberspace,” and social media in particular, are now the most important places for exchanging views. He cited LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook as places for discussing entrepreneurship, petitioning elected officials, and debating religion and politics.

“These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard,” he wrote, referring to social media sites as a “modern public square.”

The Pruneyard decision applies to common areas that are built specifically for people to congregate and it has been continually pared back every time it has been revisited.

It makes no sense to point to that and try to apply it to social media sites.

The two things are not comparable.

[zantax]

@dantes

No floor space was added, no security was added (if more security needed to be added on account of them, that would be rational to kick them out), no bathrooms were added, no maintenance was added.

Every tweet requires hard drive space, electricity to maintain it, bandwidth to deliver it. Every tweet adds to these requirements.

Lol, do you not know how twitter works? Tweets don’t cost them money, it makes them money, that’s how they derive their revenue.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

The first amendment hasn’t been applied to social media sites by federal courts, yet, but I wouldn’t bet it won’t be. Kennedy for example went on record calling them the modern public square not long ago. States like California have asserted citizens have a right to speech on private property like malls a long time ago.

from Supreme Court decision is 'a constitutional coming out party' for social media

In his opinion, Kennedy said “cyberspace,” and social media in particular, are now the most important places for exchanging views. He cited LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook as places for discussing entrepreneurship, petitioning elected officials, and debating religion and politics.

“These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard,” he wrote, referring to social media sites as a “modern public square.”

The Pruneyard decision applies to common areas that are built specifically for people to congregate and it has been continually pared back every time it has been revisited.

It makes no sense to point to that and try to apply it to social media sites.

The two things are not comparable.

Social media sites weren’t designed for people to congregate and socialize?

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

The first amendment hasn’t been applied to social media sites by federal courts, yet, but I wouldn’t bet it won’t be. Kennedy for example went on record calling them the modern public square not long ago. States like California have asserted citizens have a right to speech on private property like malls a long time ago.

from Supreme Court decision is 'a constitutional coming out party' for social media

In his opinion, Kennedy said “cyberspace,” and social media in particular, are now the most important places for exchanging views. He cited LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook as places for discussing entrepreneurship, petitioning elected officials, and debating religion and politics.

“These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard,” he wrote, referring to social media sites as a “modern public square.”

The Pruneyard decision applies to common areas that are built specifically for people to congregate and it has been continually pared back every time it has been revisited.

It makes no sense to point to that and try to apply it to social media sites.

The two things are not comparable.

Social media sites weren’t designed for people to congregate and socialize?

Nope.

Social Media was designed to sell advertisements.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

The first amendment hasn’t been applied to social media sites by federal courts, yet, but I wouldn’t bet it won’t be. Kennedy for example went on record calling them the modern public square not long ago. States like California have asserted citizens have a right to speech on private property like malls a long time ago.

from Supreme Court decision is 'a constitutional coming out party' for social media

In his opinion, Kennedy said “cyberspace,” and social media in particular, are now the most important places for exchanging views. He cited LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook as places for discussing entrepreneurship, petitioning elected officials, and debating religion and politics.

“These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard,” he wrote, referring to social media sites as a “modern public square.”

The Pruneyard decision applies to common areas that are built specifically for people to congregate and it has been continually pared back every time it has been revisited.

It makes no sense to point to that and try to apply it to social media sites.

The two things are not comparable.

Social media sites weren’t designed for people to congregate and socialize?

Nope.

Social Media was designed to sell advertisements.

And what were malls designed for?

[zantax]

By the way, 34 states have similar free speech protections on private property in their constitutions that California does.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

The first amendment hasn’t been applied to social media sites by federal courts, yet, but I wouldn’t bet it won’t be. Kennedy for example went on record calling them the modern public square not long ago. States like California have asserted citizens have a right to speech on private property like malls a long time ago.

from Supreme Court decision is 'a constitutional coming out party' for social media

In his opinion, Kennedy said “cyberspace,” and social media in particular, are now the most important places for exchanging views. He cited LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook as places for discussing entrepreneurship, petitioning elected officials, and debating religion and politics.

“These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard,” he wrote, referring to social media sites as a “modern public square.”

The Pruneyard decision applies to common areas that are built specifically for people to congregate and it has been continually pared back every time it has been revisited.

It makes no sense to point to that and try to apply it to social media sites.

The two things are not comparable.

Social media sites weren’t designed for people to congregate and socialize?

Nope.

Social Media was designed to sell advertisements.

And what were malls designed for?

To rent store space.

However, some malls have common areas designed for people to congregate and under stricter and stricter guidelines since the initial decision.

If one were to try to apply this decision to social media sites, they would be laughed out of court.

[H_Arendt]

I think you should consider why there are Terms of Service for these discussions. Sean Hannity’s website, Sean Hannity’s rules. Anyone who violates those rules can be suspended or banned. That’s how free enterprise works. These actions, no more represent violations of the First Amendment than any of complaints you are making about social media platforms.

We each have to take responsibility to abide by the Terms of Service. If we don’t, we have no reason to claim to be victims when the moderators take action.

As to your question about whether I would be delighted to see the President do something about it?

No. For two reasons:

1. I don’t believe that Washington should be the solution to every matter. With Trump in office, conservatives have really embraced the Washington centric “government solve our problems” approach they used to oppose.
2. I prefer the federal government act through legislation, not Executive Order. With Trump in office, conservatives have really embraced the use of Executive Orders, which was something they vehemently opposed when Obama was in office.

Who said that thing about “power corrupts”?

[dantes]

That’s overly simplistic logic. Why don’t you explain to me how someone tweeting about white supremacy makes them money?

[zantax]

@dantes

That’s overly simplistic logic. Why don’t you explain to me how someone tweeting about white supremacy makes them money?

The same way any other tweet makes them money. Ad revenue.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Zero states (other than California) have adopted the Pruneyard decision.

Every time Pruneyard has come up in any other state, it has been explicitly rejected.

[dantes]

You think advertisers want to run ads on white supremacist tweets?

Do you have any idea how advertising works?

[zantax]

@dantes

You think advertisers want to run ads on white supremacist tweets?

Do you have any idea how advertising works?

Not how twitter works, advertisers aren’t buying ads on specific tweets.

[BlueTex]

@zantax

Not how twitter works, advertisers aren’t buying ads on specific tweets.

That’s going to be very surprising to the thousands of businesses that purchase targeted advertising on twitter…

X Ads targeting

[zantax]

@BlueTex

That’s going to be very surprising to the thousands of businesses that purchase targeted advertising on twitter…

Do you know what targeting means? It doesn’t mean buying ad space on specific tweets. So the question isn’t whether they are willing to advertise on a white supremacist tweet but whether they are willing to sell something to the guy who made the tweet.

[dantes]

Exactly. It’s not like they can ask Twitter to remove their ads from racist tweets.

Which is why they’ll just pull all ads from Twitter. For reference, see an event commonly referred to as the adpocalypse on YouTube.

[zantax]

@dantes

Exactly. It’s not like they can ask Twitter to remove their ads from racist tweets.

Which is why they’ll just pull all ads from Twitter. For reference, see an event commonly referred to as the adpocalypse on YouTube.

Have any examples of advertisers leaving twitter because they didn’t like a specific tweet on the platform?

[dantes]

Not that I know of, however that hardly means it hasn’t happened. I gave you a more than adequate example from an analogous platform.

Twitter is allowed to police their own platform and enforce their own content rules. What do you think will happen when you take away that authority?