FTC investigates “tech censorship,” says it’s un-American and may be illegal
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I don't think the problem is that they don't know or understand it. So they'll be able and willing to fake it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Private platforms get to censor, get over it. It's been Supreme Court 1st Amendment jurisprudence for awhile (even under the Trump appointed conservative majority). Also political leanings aren't a protected class like race, religion, and gender.
Justice Kavenaugh in Manhatten Access v. Halleck
Justice Kavenaugh in Manhatten Access v. Halleck
Last edited:
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
None of these logical arguments matter any more. We are living in 1984 and the Trump regime knows that they can say and do whatever they want without any consequences. Look at the Whitehouse response about the King Trump post
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-house-post-trump-as-king/
I mean, what the fuck is going on here when a Whitehouse spokesperson sounds like an off topic right wing social media troll. Study those words carefully. Consider the playbook.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-house-post-trump-as-king/
I mean, what the fuck is going on here when a Whitehouse spokesperson sounds like an off topic right wing social media troll. Study those words carefully. Consider the playbook.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Upvote
27
(29
/
-2)
This is the scariest part toe. Last paragraph of the article
"The Carr-led FCC could act on Trump's calls to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, ..."
Even though the FCC has no jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS restricted it further...
"The Carr-led FCC could act on Trump's calls to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, ..."
Even though the FCC has no jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS restricted it further...
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
and see this is the issue with Capitalism, corporate personhood, multinational corporations and ultimately with countries/states/nations in general.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
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.
This skirts the censorship issue and still lets people feel safe online.
Upvote
-15
(0
/
-15)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I think that most companies are so risk averse that they adhere to the laws that
From the UK Crown Prosecution Service website:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
As a pre-internet BBS user I can tell you that they were, in the main, heavily moderated. Break the rules or call the mods names? Welcome to not being able to access that BBS and, if you sign up elsewhere and start sending harassing messages to the mods on the first BBS - welcome to being booted again..
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Russian trolls don't really grasp the concept of "free speech"..
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
So you want everyone shadowbanned from each other unless them opt in...
Let's take an easy example of how idiotic that is. The use of words like the n word for both a slur and not a slur would get constantly miscategorized forcing people to view hate speech or people to constantly ask for their speech to get recategorized.
At scale this would never work well.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The only thing less American than being censorious is making it illegal to be censorious.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Meanwhile, people I know who work for the government are getting notices that if they so much as have a pride flag in their private vehicles, they could be subject to termination, while there are also articles saying that they are now allowing flying Nazi flags.
Gee, I wonder who's "Free Speech" they're trying to "protect".
No, I don't. It's painfully obvious.
Gee, I wonder who's "Free Speech" they're trying to "protect".
No, I don't. It's painfully obvious.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
translation: Nazis should be able to say horrible things anywhere with no consequences.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Is there a course or something that will help the FTC better understand the constitution?
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
"The Supreme Court majority opinion said the court "has many times held, in many contexts, that it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression…” That First Amendment is a real bitch to figure out. /s No government action, no censorship.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
It primarily exists now as a weapon against Americans' free speech, or at least those who are not worshiping the Orangeführer.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Hey look, Ars' own Neo Nazis are on this thread, too:
Just a reminder that you 6 MAGA/Neo-nazis should go find a "Hitler and Elon Did Nothing Wrong" friendly zone like X so we can stop see you dragging down the human race here.
Leave.
Go somewhere else and eat your own kind so you can enjoy being depraved and bloodthirsty together in a pool of your own rage. We don't value your participation or your toxic hate. It's garbage and it's not as edgy or exciting as you clearly seem to think.
Just a reminder that you 6 MAGA/Neo-nazis should go find a "Hitler and Elon Did Nothing Wrong" friendly zone like X so we can stop see you dragging down the human race here.
Leave.
Go somewhere else and eat your own kind so you can enjoy being depraved and bloodthirsty together in a pool of your own rage. We don't value your participation or your toxic hate. It's garbage and it's not as edgy or exciting as you clearly seem to think.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
It always bothers me when a government agency says "it may be illegal". Its your job to know the law you are enforcing, not guess.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
ducatisymphony
Ars Scholae Palatinae
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
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
ducatisymphony
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Hey genius, I live in Canada. People call our leaders idiots here daily.....no repercussions (other than generally making themselves look like fools). We have hate speech laws and yet.....no such issues.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
ducatisymphony
Ars Scholae Palatinae
I don't know, cant read it. Again, requires me to remove my adblocker (which I won't do) and all you provided was a quote with no context and attributed to nobody. Fail again
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
ducatisymphony
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Thank you for the effort in digging that up. I didn't have the patience, especially given the day I had yesterday. It is amazing how often these clowns want to make vague references to things to attempt to bolster their argument without citing specifics.....especially here at ars where someone (like yourself in this instance) is sure to hunt down the details.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
This is why some of us stick with sites like Ars, where the articles are varied, good, the comments are worth reading and overall encourages IQ development 
IMHO, herding the trolls should never be a political decision, instead, leave it up to moderation to keeps things civil (or not).
IMHO, herding the trolls should never be a political decision, instead, leave it up to moderation to keeps things civil (or not).
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
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.
Upvote
-15
(0
/
-15)
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean the harm isn't done to you.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRacha
Ars Scholae Palatinae
I would donate that perceived $5000 stimulus check of DOGE rebate to those fired by Felon in Charge and his Billionairess on paper, Leon Skum.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
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.
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.
Upvote
-13
(2
/
-15)
I haven't finished reading all the comments yet so this may have already been said, but I for one am glad they are doing this because they really need to figure out who has been censoring all the "woke" and DEI information on all government websites and put a stop to it.
/tongue in cheek
/tongue in cheek
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
We try, but a lot of them really, really, really like being pig-ignorant and hate-filled. They revel in it. They roll in their own bullshit and insist it smells like roses. You know, like all the assholes that vote for right-wing parties in Canada, in Australia, in the Netherlands, in France, in Germany... just with shittier media, a bit more cultural griefing, and a lot more people not voting because they don't like the only non-Nazi party, or voting for a completely irrelevant party. First Past The Post fucked us a bit earlier than a lot of other countries, but, umm, this problem is not unique.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The fuck it does. It means that the government can't make laws telling you not to. It does not mean that the government can stomp on the first amendment rights to free association of people and corporations.
I hate to break it to you, but those Democrats were bigots and are now almost all in the Republican party (and vice versa).
Anyway, unfettered free speech gets you reamed by fascists. They don't give a shit about free speech (on the contrary), but will undermine your institutions and media weaponizing the principle until they can take over and destroy society. Every time. Look what is happening now.
The one thing a free and open society cannot tolerate is those who are committed to destroying it. That's something the ACLU never understood; you can crow about lofty "open marketplace of ideas" all you want, but that all falls down when you deal with people who want to burn that marketplace down and shoot everyone that doesn't agree with them.
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)