Are social media's recent bannings a freedom of expression issue?

[DSeid]

@DMC

There is nothing wrong with having oligopoly level power. …

I don’t disagree with that. Not inherently. Such power though can be used in ways that are against public interests. Now feel free to educate me if I am wrong here, but the Sherman Act offers remedies against anti-competitive behaviors, and others regulations are sometimes created in interest of the public good in other cases (such as the “must-carry” rules alluded to now way upthread).

This small aside was however over the position that the existence of some number of competitors, even trivial ones (such as messageboards like ours, or Joe zapping along on with his garage server) are proof that oligopoly power does not exist. It is defined by market power, and subject to the Sherman Act for anti-competitive behaviors.

@k9bfriender

It doesn’t cost all that much to file a lawsuit. To win it is a different matter.

Keep in mind, as well, that you are talking about creating a govt regulatory body, where that body would be the one fronting the costs of investigation and litigation.

Getting a lawsuit prepared to the level that it needs to be responded to is enough of a barrier that many, maybe most, threats of such for ridiculous reasons that are sure to lose never happen.

And in any case this portion of the discussion is NOT proposing a new governmental regulatory body. It proposes the remedy of some regulatory guidance for what social media terms of service may look like, and a requirement that platforms have a process in place, inclusive of an appeal process, that attempts to enforce those terms of service with consistency.

@k9bfriender

So it would apply to the SDMB?

If so, then say goodbye to it. The first complaint that requires that they pay a lawyer a cent to defend it, and the plug is pulled.

Do you imagine that there is something preventing anyone from sueing the SDMB or its owners now? Again idiots can always sue, even when there is no chance of winning. Even idiots usually do not, because usually they have to find a lawyer first, and either pay them something, or convince them that there is a case that will bring an award worth their time. Let’s imagine that conversation!

Disciplined Doper: I’ve been wronged! Harmed I say! (This messageboard won’t let me say X! Or let’s others say X to me!)
Lawyer calculates out chance of winning the case, and likely harms awarded: Please leave.

The lawyers here would not take even their own cases!

There is nothing stopping Twitter from being sued now by anyone for alleged harms other than the fact that the plaintiff has no chance at winning anything.

(Actually the SDMB is in good shape by this standard. We have pretty clear sets of rules for each forum, and relative to user base size a large group of human moderators attempting to enforce those rules, with an appeals process in place by way of the ATMB forum, in which the totality of moderators review a questioned decision. Of course there are still bad calls made and some left standing but the standards are clear, the process is fairly transparent, and there is a good faith effort made to follow it with consistency. I’ve no idea about how GB is moderated. I’d suspect that in actual practice moderation is less arbitrary and capricious than advertised, but do not know.)

[DMC]

@DSeid

I don’t disagree with that. Not inherently. Such power though can be used in ways that are against public interests. Now feel free to educate me if I am wrong here, but the Sherman Act offers remedies against anti-competitive behaviors, and others regulations are sometimes created in interest of the public good in other cases (such as the “must-carry” rules alluded to now way upthread).

I have yet to see any evidence that Twitter has engaged in anti-competitive behaviors and I’ve also stated that I have no issues with going after Facebook, and Google, and Apple (although I find Apple a bit less compelling as it is purely about the AppStore, not anything else the company does). But going after them, and even breaking them up, doesn’t really change the impact, positively or negatively, on someone’s right to free expression. In other words, go to town on monopolistic practices and companies, but leave them alone on the rules of moderation, which are unrelated.

As for must-carry, I can absolutely guarantee you (hey lawyers, back me up here) that they would not apply if everyone was able to set up a television station, visible to most of the planet, for almost no investment. There is a finite spectrum for both television and radio. For television in particular, the costs of entry to the actual spectrum itself is prohibitive. The internet has no such limits and the cost of entry, even of the equivalent to the spectrum itself (we call it Tier 1 networks, like Level 3) is inconsequential. If I get myself an ASN (piece of cake), I can actually pay for transit (the moving around of the bits of the internet) directly from a Tier 1. Almost no one does that, because there are hundreds or thousands of hosts and tens of thousands of ISPs who would be more than happy to host your site and could care less what the content was unless the government actually forced their hand (back to exemptions to the first amendment, such as those Q-pedophiles).

I wouldn’t have any idea who to even begin setting up my cable company and get local stations to agree to provide their content, but I bet it’s pricey as fuck. On the other hand, anyone here can DM me and I’ll happily walk them through the steps to setting up a web presence, in case my overview earlier wasn’t enough. As an alternative, they can simply pay someone like GoDaddy $5.99 a month and have their site hosted with a free domain name, and grow as their needs do.

[DemonTree]

@k9bfriender

No, they removed him because he was spouting hateful and inciting language.

Bullshit, he’s been doing that for at least four years and they only kick him off now. I’ve seen people kicked off Twitter for nothing, while other users continue to spew threats with no consequence. They don’t enforce their own rules and there’s no recourse.

@k9bfriender

The difference is, is that the government can punish you for your speech, if it were not for the 1st amendment. All a social media company can do is no longer give you a platform for it.

So if the government doesn’t punish you, but merely acts to make sure no one care hear what you say, that’s all hunky-dory?

@k9bfriender

Just out of curiosity, OP, what is your position on net neutrality?

As one of the OPs, I’m in favour.

@iiandyiiii

This does matter. If it’s government, that is reducing free expression. If it’s private entities, it’s not. The government controlling what Twitter can or can’t disallow would reduce free expression (most notably, Twitter’s).

You appear to merely be disagreeing on the semantics.

@k9bfriender

I don’t know what that means, in many ways. They have healthcare, and a better social safety net, which is cool, but I don’t know how they are “freer”.

Freer can have many definitions. My employer can’t fire me for voting for the wrong party, but if I annoy someone on Twitter, they can go to the police and accuse me of a ‘hate incident’, and it will be recorded with no evidence required and no requirement to inform me.

@k9bfriender

That’s not why we should tolerate extreme speech. Would should tolerate extreme speech because there may be a day that what you think is perfectly reasonable, the government thinks is extreme.

Exactly. But remember the same may apply to the majority of your fellow citizens - something you think is reasonable, they find extreme.

@iiandyiiii

I think government stepping in would make things worse. Maybe the Biden administration wouldn’t totally screw things up, but what about the Trump admin?

They’re both dangerous in different ways. The Trump admin is dangerous because it would try to promote fake news, no question. The Biden administration is dangerous because the tech companies would cooperate in the censorship rather than fighting it.

@GIGObuster

Twitter should have banned his ass a long time ago based on their rules, and forced him to be a president and not the asshole in chief.

Not even Twitter has that power!

[DMC]

@DemonTree

I’ve seen people kicked off Twitter for nothing, while other users continue to spew threats with no consequence.

The number of people kicked off for no reason is probably close in number to the cases of proven election fraud in the 2020 election.

@DemonTree

So if the government doesn’t punish you, but merely acts to make sure no one care hear what you say, that’s all hunky-dory?

The government? The government made Twitter ban Trump? I don’t even…

[DemonTree]

@DMC

The number of people kicked off for no reason is probably close in number to the cases of proven election fraud in the 2020 election.

What trust you must have in Twitter’s procedures!

@DMC

The government? The government made Twitter ban Trump? I don’t even…

Keep your hair on. This is known as a hypothetical.

[k9bfriender]

@DSeid

And in any case this portion of the discussion is NOT proposing a new governmental regulatory body. It proposes the remedy of some regulatory guidance for what social media terms of service may look like, and a requirement that platforms have a process in place, inclusive of an appeal process, that attempts to enforce those terms of service with consistency.

I don’t see how you set up regulatory guidance, requirements, appeals processes and enforcement without having a regulatory body to do so.

@DSeid

Again idiots can always sue, even when there is no chance of winning. Even idiots usually do not, because usually they have to find a lawyer first, and either pay them something, or convince them that there is a case that will bring an award worth their time. Let’s imagine that conversation!

Right, because there are no regulations that the SDMB may be in violation of.

Change that conversation to, Disciplined Doper: This messageboard is in violation of regulatory code A, paragraph c, clause 2 of the Social Media regulatory commission. Here’s the TOS, here’s the post that was modded, here are other posts that were not modded of a similar nature.

@DSeid

There is nothing stopping Twitter from being sued now by anyone for alleged harms other than the fact that the plaintiff has no chance at winning anything.

Exactly, because right now, there are no regulations or laws that they could be violating. You want to put laws in so that there are regulations and laws that they could be violating.

And once again, it would not necessarily have to be individuals who are doing this. If you have these regulations, then it becomes a burden of the govt to ensure that these regulations are followed. They wouldn’t have to hire a lawyer, they would just have to file a complaint.

Even if there is no merit to the complaint, the govt would still be required to do due diligence in investigating it, even if that just means sending a form letter to the host of the social media site to get their side of the story. How many of those forms do you think that SDMB staff will be willing to fill out before they pull the plug?

You are the one who is wanting to change things so that the govt has oversight over the moderation and disciplinary process of social media sites. These are the consequences of what it is that you are saying that you want.

If it is not that you want govt to have oversight over the moderation and disciplinary process of social media sites, what exactly is the remedy that you are trying to push for here?

[Kimstu]

@DemonTree

@k9bfriender

No, they removed him because he was spouting hateful and inciting language.

Bullshit, he’s been doing that for at least four years and they only kick him off now.

Uh, I think you two may be talking past each other: it seems clear to me that k9bfriender knows full well that Trump has been in violation of his Twitter ToS BY A LOT!, even before the events of last Wednesday.

The point is that Twitter has a legitimate justification for banning Trump because he violated the ToS. IA still NAL, but I don’t think that in this case a defense of “Well I’ve been breaking the rules all along, it’s unfair that you’re only starting to punish me for it now!” would get him anywhere. AFAICT there is no way to require or enforce that Twitter be consistent in their ToS enforcement:

Policies Aren’t Contracts: Why Social Media Can Decide When Trump Crosses the Line

Social media companies don’t have to consistently enforce their policies or terms of services. And there’s little legal recourse for those looking to force them to abide more closely to their own rules.

@DemonTree

@k9bfriender

The difference is, is that the government can punish you for your speech, if it were not for the 1st amendment. All a social media company can do is no longer give you a platform for it.

So if the government doesn’t punish you, but merely acts to make sure no one care hear what you say, that’s all hunky-dory?

Again, are you sure you understood him correctly? The government is not doing anything to you if the social media company decides to ban you from its platform.

@DemonTree

@iiandyiiii

This does matter. If it’s government, that is reducing free expression. If it’s private entities, it’s not. The government controlling what Twitter can or can’t disallow would reduce free expression (most notably, Twitter’s).

You appear to merely be disagreeing on the semantics.

Again, I think we may be having a transatlantic mutual intelligibility situation here. To Americans in general, the distinction between what government can do to an individual as punishment for disapproved speech, and what a private company can do to the individual in terms of refusing to provide them with a platform for disapproved speech, is not “mere semantics”. It is a huge and important difference.

You may say (in your fancypants English accent ), “Well what does it matter who’s taking the action, if the consequence in both cases is to reduce the individual’s effective ability to be heard?” But over on this side of the pond, it matters a great deal.

[k9bfriender]

@DemonTree

Bullshit, he’s been doing that for at least four years and they only kick him off now.

Right, because as president, he was given far more leeway than anyone else would be. He did finally cross a line that even being president didn’t give him leeway for when he called for and sent an insurrection against out government.

We’ve been through this before.

@DemonTree

I’ve seen people kicked off Twitter for nothing, while other users continue to spew threats with no consequence. They don’t enforce their own rules and there’s no recourse.

I’m sure you feel that way. Given your misrepresentations and misinterpretations in this very post, I have some serious doubts as to whether or not the way that you feel about such posts reflect reality.

@DemonTree

So if the government doesn’t punish you, but merely acts to make sure no one care hear what you say, that’s all hunky-dory?

One, “hunky-dory”? No, there is a difference between what is “hunky-dory” and what is legal.

Two, where did I say anything of the sort? When did I say that the government would be acting in a way to make sure that no one can hear what you say?

It’s almost as if you didn’t respond at all to what it is that I actually said there.

@DemonTree

As one of the OPs, I’m in favour.

Great, so we are agreed on that.

@DemonTree

You appear to merely be disagreeing on the semantics.

Not iiandyiiii here, but it’s not semantics to distinguish between the government and a private entity. It’s actually really important to be able to do so, otherwise, you end up thinking that someone telling you not to yell at them in their own living room is a violation of their first amendment rights.

@DemonTree

My employer can’t fire me for voting for the wrong party, but if I annoy someone on Twitter, they can go to the police and accuse me of a ‘hate incident’, and it will be recorded with no evidence required and no requirement to inform me.

You’ll have to actually give an example of this, and what the consequences to you are if you are never even informed.

I mean, I would assume that the evidence would be the actual words that you used, right? So, what do you mean by no evidence?

@DemonTree

Exactly. But remember the same may apply to the majority of your fellow citizens - something you think is reasonable, they find extreme.

I have no idea if you are trying to disagree with me here or not. You reiterated exactly what I said, but you prefaced it with a “but”.

Could you elaborate on whether or not you agree with the statement that I made? If you disagree, could you explain why, and if you agree, could you explain why you prefaced it with a “but”?

@DemonTree

The Trump admin is dangerous because it would try to promote fake news, no question.

Well, yeah, but my understanding is that that is what you want them to be forced to do.

@DemonTree

The Biden administration is dangerous because the tech companies would cooperate in the censorship rather than fighting it.

How does that follow? At all?

[DMC]

@DemonTree

What trust you must have in Twitter’s procedures!

Not really. I just happen to have a rudimentary understanding of business. Since active users are a currency in which Twitter trades, there is no point in banning people for no reason. That’s like burning cash, literally. But hey, conspiracists gonna conspire.

@DemonTree

Keep your hair on. This is known as a hypothetical.

I’m not aware of anyone in this thread claiming that the government acting to make sure no one can hear what you say is hunky-dory. So you’re arguing against a hypothetical that you made up? I’ve seen people call that a strawman.

[Ruken]

@Dangerosa

So this piece might be interesting to some people. It doesn’t talk about First Amendment issues, it does talk about PUA and where they came from and how complex the space is and the service provider dependencies (i.e. Akamai and Facebook have a PUA between each other - the piece makes it sound a little like the pre WWI European treaty situation).

I learned, thanks.

(I’m assuming AUP, not PUA? Acceptable Use Policy, if I recall the now-closed article.)

[k9bfriender]

Ah, I was kinda wondering what pick-up artists had to do with it.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@DMC

I like you, you asked a very specific question.

My answer: “None.”

My follow-on question would be… since it appears that nobody can envision any legislation to fix this “problem”… if you don’t care about it enough to fix it, why would you expect anyone else to care about it?

[Dangerosa]

Yeah, typo on my part. Apparently picking up babes by dissin’ 'em is on my mind.

[DSeid]

@HMS_Irruncible

… since it appears that nobody can envision any legislation to fix this “problem”… if you don’t care about it enough to fix it, why would you expect anyone else to care about it?

Two part answer to that comment.

1. Several remedies have been offered in this thread. You may not agree with the remedies proposed or even agree that there is a problem that requires a solution, but your statement is inconsistent with the contents of the thread.

2. There are problems that we each can recognize exist without having yet determined a solution for. Typically the recognition that there is a problem that should be addressed comes before the solution and lack of an immediately apparent solution does not make a problem less significant or worthy of concern. In fact the lack of immediate and obvious simple solutions makes discussion and brainstorming more critical. The reality is that I (and I am in good company here) am not the smartest person available to bring to bear on most problems. In fact often no single I is and once a problem is recognized groups working together can do more than the smartest individual can alone.

[DSeid]

Another thank you for the highly informative link!

[HMS_Irruncible]

@DSeid

Several remedies have been offered in this thread. You may not agree with the remedies proposed or even agree that there is a problem that requires a solution, but your statement is inconsistent with the contents of the thread.

This is quite a long thread and I haven’t read all of it, but from what I have read, there are hints at remedies. My question goes beyond remedies; I am inquiring what laws one would like to see passed. Not the exact verbiage; just tell me the sort of thing you’d like to put some teeth into.

@DSeid

Typically the recognition that there is a problem that should be addressed comes before the solution and lack of an immediately apparent solution does not make a problem less significant or worthy of concern.

What I am asking for is not a fully formed solution. Rather, I’m asking - of the solutions people have imagined or written, which ones would you be willing to legislate the state’s monopoly of force to implement?

Let’s take an example I saw upthread. “Twitter should have a transparent committee to make these decisions.” Okay, fair enough. That’s a sound strategy for forcing Twitter to be more transparent and fair to its (non-paying) customers.

My question would be… why does Twitter owe that to its nonpaying customers, or to anyone? Do you believe strongly enough in this to wield the government’s monopoly of force to make it happen?

If not, then this amounts to little more than a complaint about poor customer service.

[DSeid]

Yes I feel strongly enough that I would propose a legal remedy that gives broad 1A consistent guardrails to what the platforms ToS can look like, impose upon the platforms an obligation to implement their ToS as consistently as possible, and to have a process in place to do that which includes some appeal process.

I am open to a regulatory board that could adjudicate and arbitrate complaints that fall out of the appeals process or leaving that to the courts. The former often is how health insurance complaints are handled- usually by appeal to committee for review - and only rarely continued past that. But such is not a requirement of the proposal.

I do not rule out others having better ideas however. My mind is more still at step one. Navalny’s post got me recognizing how such power could easily be abused in various political circumstances. The dynamic between the public good of controlling disinformation and of not icing out the ability of dissent is a bigger issue that I do NOT have a solution for, but one that I believe exists and needs minds better than mine to consider.

[Chingon]

So someone should be able to sue Twitter if Twitter decides to take down pro Nazi messages? Even if this drives advertisers away from Twitter? Should we then compel advertisers to also pay for ads next to Nazi imagery?

[DSeid]

Care to explain how you went from anything in this thread to that conclusion?

[Chingon]

You give me TOS that would prevent that, and be consistent with 1A.