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

[k9bfriender]

@asahi

An attorney familiar with federal laws would be better qualified to determine what would and wouldn’t fly in a federal court as far as regulation goes. I’m throwing out ideas at this point. But I reject the idea that we’re left to do nothing in the face of powerful misinformation which, left unchecked, will destroy our democracy.

You are saying that something needs to be done. I’m not asking for specifics, just at least a general idea of what you think is a remedy for your complaint.

@asahi

if we could break up Standard Oil, we can break up Facebook.

Standard Oil had a pretty good stranglehold over the physical infrastructure of producing, importing, refining, and delivering gasoline. Facebook has no such thing. The next bright shiny could take all their users in a second.

@asahi

As it is now, FB, Twitter, and other big platforms have a highly inconsistent policing policy, typically only policing speech when their brand has been embarrassed in some way.

I don’t think that this is true. It is true true that it is only when some perceived inconsistency in their application of their TOS has been particularly embarrassing, it has made the news and you heard about it, but people have been sanctioned off of these social media sites pretty much since their inception.

People have disagreed with their TOS and the enforcement of it. And it has been difficult for them to keep up. For instance, I recall a story about facebook being used to harass and organize torment for people in Myanmar, and it came out that Facebook only had a couple of moderators who spoke the language, to be responsible for enforcing their TOS on hundreds of thousands of users. Quite a bit of stuff got through that shouldn’t have.

@asahi

Should I be able to make my own messageboard that forbids the use of the word, “it”?
This question would be better if the example were more realistic.

Sorry, I guess you did not get the Monty Python reference, but the point was whether a messageboard could have arbitrary rules. If I set up a board for dog training, grooming, and care, could I forbid any discussion of cats, if that is a more realistic example for you.

Could I forbid any political discussion on my board that is dedicated to my trade?

Or could I just on a lark, set up the “Knights of Ni” messageboard, and allow any and all discussion, so long as the word, “It”, is never used? Maybe it would never get any users, and whether it violates intellectual property is a different discussion, but could I have such an arbitrary rule?

@asahi

If someone could prove that they were moderated arbitrarily, I don’t know about a lawsuit per se, but perhaps they could submit a complaint to a regulatory body (be it FTC, FCC, or a new agency that deals with social media).

How would they go about proving this? Would they have to have proved it before they can submit their complaint, or would they submit the complaint, and then the social media company has to respond?

@asahi

I think what would happen over time is that lawyers and legal departments representing these companies would give moderation guidance.

The SDMB and other small social media sites don’t have lawyers or legal departments to give moderation guidance. Even the companies that do, does that mean that moderators need to run their actions by the legal department?

@asahi

Perhaps one preemptive remedy for companies would be that garden variety legal disputes over unfair moderation be resolved through a process that begins internally

That is how most of them, including the SDMB operate right now.

@asahi

if it escalates, ends with arbitration rather than litigation, clear regulatory infractions notwithstanding.

This adds a level that will prevent small messageboards from existing.

It will probably cause some impact on the big ones, as well, as users go from a commodity and product to a potential liability, so we would likely see twitter and other social media no longer free, but you will have to pay for it, as you will no longer have any other alternatives.

@asahi

No doubt, this would change how social media operate, and the changes would be noticeable. In some ways, these changes would feel noticeably restrictive

Yes, I think they would be very much so.

@asahi

I personally think that the internet needs to be cleaned up for our own good in the sense that the power must be shifted back to the public interest.

No greater evils have been perpetuated on others than the ones justified as being for their own good.

We have half this thread worried about social media companies “currying favor” with the govt. What you are asking if for them to be beholden to the govt.

When printing presses first became a thing, you had to have a license from the crown to print, and every printing had to be approved by the govt. This was justified as being in the public’s interest, but it does not take much for such to become in the interest of those who make and enforce those rules.

@asahi

At the same time, I’d like to see net neutrality tilt some of that power back away from internet providers.

Agreed here, but net neutrality is a completely different subject. The only way that it relates is that a lack of net neutrality can make it harder for a small messageboard or social media site to exist.

@asahi

People look at regulation as though it’s going to immediately used to censor and stifle communication on the internet.

That’s the nature of regulations. They regulate what you can and cannot do. If you are regulating how people communicate on the internet, then you are by definition censoring and stifling it. You specifically say that you want certain communications to be stopped.

@asahi

communication that everybody knows is harmful

You may not always agree with what “everybody knows”.

@asahi

because they don’t want to do anything that interferes with the way they operate and because they don’t want to risk alienating some users who lurk in dark corners of the web.

I don’t think it’s so nefarious as that. They have millions of users, probably tens of millions of posts a day. They physically cannot moderate everything, and they cannot ensure that everything is moderated exactly the same.

[Kimstu]

@DSeid

I see this more as not wanting to provoke the baby Trump and/or his Senate enablers to throw things at them, and then buttering the new boss party.

Well, I believe you that that’s how you see it in your opinion. It’s perfectly legit for your opinion to disagree with mine, but you still haven’t offered any more actual evidence for your opinion than DemonTree has.

[asahi]

@k9bfriender

You are saying that something needs to be done. I’m not asking for specifics, just at least a general idea of what you think is a remedy for your complaint.

…which I’ve pretty much laid out.

@k9bfriender

Standard Oil had a pretty good stranglehold over the physical infrastructure of producing, importing, refining, and delivering gasoline. Facebook has no such thing. The next bright shiny could take all their users in a second.

Facebook has capital that gives it a tremendous advantage over anyone who wants to compete in that space. But I’m not really trying to debate whether anti-trust laws should be applied to FB. That comment was made in the spirit of essentially arguing that I’m open to pretty much any legal trick in the book that will make some of these companies more responsive to the public interest, which they are clearly and deliberately not serving.

@k9bfriender

I don’t think that this is true.

In many of the high profile cases - Trump, Alex Jones, others - they get banned only when they have gone so far out of bounds that they get threatened with political or legal backlash. I’m saying we should explore whether or not it needs to get to that point.

@k9bfriender

If I set up a board for dog training, grooming, and care, could I forbid any discussion of cats, if that is a more realistic example for you.

Could I forbid any political discussion on my board that is dedicated to my trade?

If that’s what you wanted to do as a moderator, sure, it’s your site. A reminder, I’m fine with whatever restrictions the media want to impose - that’s between them and the user. People get kicked off message boards for ideological non-conformity all the time. I’m arguing that if their terms of service say that users will be banned for repeatedly referring to groups of people or other posters as (whatever epithet comes to mind) then those terms of service should mean something - they should be suspended and, if repetitious, banned.

@k9bfriender

How would they go about proving this? Would they have to have proved it before they can submit their complaint, or would they submit the complaint, and then the social media company has to respond?

How do courts and administrative agencies ever prove anything, k9bfriender? They look at the evidence. How does someone prove a breech of contract? How does an employer prove he had just cause to terminate an employee for something he said? How does a fired employee prove he doesn’t? People take a look at the evidence and decide for themselves - that’s how. I think your fears are rooted in an irrational fear of a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

@k9bfriender

That is how most of them, including the SDMB operate right now.

Right, but would that necessarily preclude someone from filing a frivolous lawsuit against SDMB if they really wanted to? The reason more people don’t is because most people know that a case has no merit, so they don’t waste their time - but people can take someone to court from pretty much anything.

@k9bfriender

This adds a level that will prevent small messageboards from existing.

Without being able to read minds, that might be true for some would-be message board owners. But reddit also does a lot to prevent messageboards from existing. It has killed many a message board over the years because of its massive influence and reach – as has Facebook.

The question I pose is, with companies like Reddit and Facebook, having driven so many online communities into extinction and, as a result, being so massive, so powerful, so influential, what now? It’s one thing if fake news spreads on a site like SDMB or its inverted right wing equivalent; it’s quite another if it’s being pushed on sites that are used in almost every household in this country. Isn’t it in our collective interest to control these companies so that they act in the best interests of the public? I shouldn’t have to be the victim of my neighbor’s inability to distinguish shit from shampoo. Don’t talk to me about how people are free to make informed decisions – they clearly don’t. If there’s one hypothesis about free speech that has been proven dead wrong, it’s this fanciful notion that good ideas out-compete destructive ones in the marketplace of ideas.

My proof? January 6th 2020. Mask holes. QAnon. Vaxxers. I rest my case. I’m done with social media companies - and frankly traditional media companies for that matter - throwing up their hands and saying there’s nothing that can be done because…first amendment. Fuck the first amendment if that is the case.

[DemonTree]

@BigT

As for changing attitudes: you’re telling people to stop being against things like condoning violence, spreading false information, staging insurrections, and so on.

Wouldn’t it be better to persuade people not to condone violence, spread false information, etc? I don’t know why you’d want to stop anyone from being against those things.

@BigT

Despite claims to the contrary, that remains what conservatives get banned for. They complain that it’s because they’re conservative, but fail to realize those who aren’t banned don’t say those things. It’s not about their views but their behavior.

I don’t know what conservatives get banned for, but I do know that normal, non-Trump people are banned just for their views every day. I see examples on Twitter constantly.

@BigT

And, yes, there is no monopoly here, and I’m not too concerned by the evidence we have that Twitter and such would ever be so stupid as to start banning people for things that society in general would consider unfair. The profit motive means they’ll only ban what their target audience wants banned, and their goal continues to be having as many people use them as possible.

I’m not worried about them banning things that the majority consider unfair. It’s not majorities with popular views who need free speech protections. It’s minorities and people with unpopular views who need protection. Unpopular != wrong.

[DSeid]

@HMS_Irruncible

I guess you are talking about Navalny here? I’m sure if I weighted an appeal to authority at all

I actually do weigh appeals to authorities, not as absolute deference, but as something to be given significant weight. It is why I take seriously what authorities say about climate change for example, and vaccine safety, and more. Your take on who Navalny is, is form my perspective immaterial. Unlike some here, my opinion on the need to have open space for dissent, and the dangers of letting a few have excessive control over it, are not contingent on if I like or agree with the dissenter or the positions taken, although they are counterbalanced by the need to reduce the efficacy of hate speech and outright disinformation.

@HMS_Irruncible

To spell it out …

I am glad you can spell. I would appreciate if you would also read. When a thread becomes repeating what has been said because posters don’t bother reading it may be time to call it a day. Again, I am very clear that any guard rails created are, appropriately, quite limited in that there are significant 1A protections to the the “speech” of corporate persons. I do not endorse a government agency/body blessing “what’s authentic and permissive public speech”.

@k9bfriender

Combined with what he said in person, and what was happening on his behalf as he was tweeting them, I’d say that they certainly do qualify

Wink wink nudge nudge, say no more! A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat, squire! Real world, the asshole in chief has said explicitly hateful things and explicitly called on supporters previously. In that context claiming - Wagner, I know he meant, Max - is what crosses the line, is a bit rich.

OTOH yes I see timing of change of power being pretty damn clear to me. Barring the ability to do a controlled trial in an alternate reality in which the GOP won the Georgia seats and Trump won the election, I’ll go with deference to those in power, or soon to be in power, out of self-interest as the simple explanation. There is no possible cite to offer for seeing A followed by B and suspecting causation given that it follows vested best interests.

@k9bfriender

You are saying that something needs to be done. I’m not asking for specifics, just at least a general idea of what you think is a remedy for your complaint.

I’ve stated it several times and am not bothering to keep repeating. Sorry.

But more broadly, I will repeat one thing else from before: the argument technique of claiming that identifying a problem is dismissable if one does not have a solution for the problem at the ready, is a very poor one.

Step one is alway identifying that there is a problem and defining it. Step two is brainstorming on a selection of possible solutions to the problem, getting people who are most capable to be part of that process. Step three is identifying which of the possible solutions work best without causing greater harms and how to make it work.

This thread is really still debating step one, and to claim that doing such is meaningless because you have not already done step three to someone else’s satisfaction is downright silly.

Heck, right now we have posters who literally claim that as long as they do nothing to “prevent me from posting”, and as long as the target is speech that “we” agree is “bad”, not “our”, “good” speech, there is no problem. “My speech” is not the target right now, no worries. Again the guardrails ideally get placed before the trucks careen off the road.

Is there any level of market domination by a few companies that would concern you? Is it even required to see that power being abused currently to put up protections against its future abuse?

[Slash1972]

@DSeid

Heck, right now we have posters who literally claim that as long as they do nothing to “prevent me from posting”, and as long as the target is speech that “we” agree is “bad”, not “our”, “good” speech, there is no problem. “My speech” is not the target right now, no worries. Again the guardrails ideally get placed before the trucks careen off the road.

sorry, I should have been more general. As long as ‘everyone’ can still go online, create a message board or a blog or a web page or a new social media app, then I don’t see a problem.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@DSeid

But more broadly, I will repeat one thing else from before: the argument technique of claiming that identifying a problem is dismissable if one does not have a solution for the problem at the ready, is a very poor one.

The argument is not that you need to have a solution right now. The argument is that your concern may not be addressable without causing unacceptable side effects. And contra your increasingly condescending comments in this thread, I have apprehended your suggestion, and it appears to me that your approach to unintended consequences is to snidely gloss over them as if they’ll work themselves out.

If you give the government speech control levers, eventually someone in the government will try (and possibly succeed) in subverting it. If you don’t want to be clear about that fact, or how you’d counter it, your opinion frankly is unserious wishful thinking.

[DemonTree]

@Slash1972

As long as ‘everyone’ can still go online, create a message board or a blog or a web page or a new social media app, then I don’t see a problem.

Most people are not able to create those things for themselves. They will need to find hosting for their blog or web page which means they are still subject to censorship.

[Slash1972]

@DemonTree

Most people are not able to create those things for themselves. They will need to find hosting for their blog or web page which means they are still subject to censorship

Here’s a secret you may not know - people can host their own blog or web page.

[DemonTree]

@Slash1972

Here’s a secret you may not know - people can host their own blog or web page.

Did you read where I said ‘most people’?

[Slash1972]

@DemonTree

Did you read where I said ‘most people

I’m fairly certain that ‘most people’ can figure out how to hire a person to help them with their blog or web page.

[Miller]

“Most people” don’t know how to do it because they’ve never tried. If they wanted to, they could learn how to do it in an afternoon.

[k9bfriender]

@asahi

Facebook has capital that gives it a tremendous advantage over anyone who wants to compete in that space. But I’m not really trying to debate whether anti-trust laws should be applied to FB. That comment was made in the spirit of essentially arguing that I’m open to pretty much any legal trick in the book that will make some of these companies more responsive to the public interest, which they are clearly and deliberately not serving.

It has advantages, but that doesn’t make it a monopoly, or justify using anti-trust laws as a legal trick. If there needs to be legislation to deal with this problem, then it should be done at that level, rather than stretching something that was not meant to be used in this fashion.

The public interest is that people want a platform to communicate. In that sense, they certainly are responsive to that. It is not at all clear that they are not serving the public interest, much less not doing so in a deliberate fashion.

People will use means of communication to say the things that they want to say. If they are saying things that you don’t want them to say, that’s not something that I think that the govt could enforce.

If facebook and twitter changed their TOS to, “As long as it is not one of the defined categories of illegal speech, it’s fair game.” that would follow what you say that you want, but it still wouldn’t actually do what you actually want, which is to prevent certain people from saying certain things, and using the government to force social media sites to enforce that.

@asahi

In many of the high profile cases - Trump, Alex Jones, others - they get banned only when they have gone so far out of bounds that they get threatened with political or legal backlash. I’m saying we should explore whether or not it needs to get to that point.

Obviously if they are breaking the law with their speech, then they need to be censored. Otherwise, it’s not a legal backlash they are worried about, it is more that they are worried that sponsors and users will leave if they don’t do something about it.

We can explore what point it can get to, but we currently do have a point, and that is the types of speech that are actually considered to be illegal. If the government enforces any further restrictions on social media sites, then that is pretty specifically a violation of 1A.

So, is it just consistency and evenness of the application of the TOS that you are looking to enforce, or are you looking to enforce what that TOS can look like as well?

@asahi

If that’s what you wanted to do as a moderator, sure, it’s your site. A reminder, I’m fine with whatever restrictions the media want to impose - that’s between them and the user. People get kicked off message boards for ideological non-conformity all the time. I’m arguing that if their terms of service say that users will be banned for repeatedly referring to groups of people or other posters as (whatever epithet comes to mind) then those terms of service should mean something - they should be suspended and, if repetitious, banned.

I don’t disagree, but I also don’t know that this is really an issue. That is what happens, with the acknowledgement that sometimes things are over or under moderated.

Are you also fine with whatever allowances the media wants to impose? If I have a social media site that allows hate speech, encourages the spread of disinformation, and as long as no laws are broken, no one is sanctioned?

@asahi

How do courts and administrative agencies ever prove anything, k9bfriender ? They look at the evidence. How does someone prove a breech of contract? How does an employer prove he had just cause to terminate an employee for something he said? How does a fired employee prove he doesn’t? People take a look at the evidence and decide for themselves - that’s how.

Okay, so you are saying that if someone does not feel as though they were fairly moderated, then they would be able to take this to the courts, and then have the social media site defend itself and its moderation practices?

@asahi

I think your fears are rooted in an irrational fear of a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Not at all. My concerns are grounded in the very practical sense that the SDMB would cease to exist under such a legal regime.

@asahi

Right, but would that necessarily preclude someone from filing a frivolous lawsuit against SDMB if they really wanted to? The reason more people don’t is because most people know that a case has no merit, so they don’t waste their time - but people can take someone to court from pretty much anything

Frivolous lawsuits are not all that common, as it takes time and effort to put them together, and if they are truly frivolous, then the person who brought it up can be sanctioned in one way or another.

Right now, that’s what would happen. If someone didn’t like how they were ruled on in ATMB, they would be laughed out of any court that they tried to go to. It could still be a bit damaging, as it has been warned that any lawsuit against the SDMB, no matter how frivolous, may be grounds for shutting it down, but it may not even get to that point, as the court may refuse to even grant that someone has standing to complain about moderator actions. The SDMB wouldn’t even need to respond to the complaint.

If the laws that you want to have were in effect, then it would not be frivolous, they would have standing, and even if the suit is found to not have merit, it would be taken much more seriously, and the SDMB would be required to respond.

As would any other social media cite or messageboard, even my Dog care and grooming cite, as people sue because they think that they should be allowed to talk about cats.

@asahi

Without being able to read minds, that might be true for some would-be message board owners.

You don’t need to read minds to see that someone is not going to run a free service if they have to pay to have a legal team on staff.

@asahi

But reddit also does a lot to prevent messageboards from existing. It has killed many a message board over the years because of its massive influence and reach – as has Facebook.

I don’t see how it has kept them from existing. It’s more convenient to start up a subreddit than it is to start up your own server, but it’s not like reddit made it harder. If you don’t like the TOS of reddit or facebook, you can start your own. If you don’t mind them, and find it easier to simply use their existing infrastructure than to put forth a minimal effort of creating your own, it exists for your ease of use.

@asahi

The question I pose is, with companies like Reddit and Facebook, having driven so many online communities into extinction

I do not agree that this is the case. I mean, look at us, right here, right now.

@asahi

it’s quite another if it’s being pushed on sites that are used in almost every household in this country.

Facebook is not the one pushing these fake news stories. It is either advertisers, which is something that could be looked into, or it is your friends.

@asahi

Isn’t it in our collective interest to control these companies so that they act in the best interests of the public?

IMHO, no. Any attempts at controlling these companies is a direct threat to speech and expression. It both raises the bar for alternatives to exist, and it also gives the govt a direct line of control over what people are allowed to say.

@asahi

I shouldn’t have to be the victim of my neighbor’s inability to distinguish shit from shampoo.

That is your neighbor’s choice. We’ve had people making bad decisions based on bad information since we’ve had people making decisions.

@asahi

If there’s one hypothesis about free speech that has been proven dead wrong, it’s this fanciful notion that good ideas out-compete destructive ones in the marketplace of ideas.

I don’t know that it’s been proven dead wrong. You did notice that Biden did win, right?

What has been proven to be dead wrong time and time again is that giving the government control over speech can make sure that everyone is protected from disinformation.

@asahi

My proof? January 6th 2020. Mask holes. QAnon. Vaxxers. I rest my case. I’m done with social media companies - and frankly traditional media companies for that matter - throwing up their hands and saying there’s nothing that can be done because…first amendment.

It’s not just because we have a pretty well enshrined freedom of speech clause built into our constitution, it’s that restricting speech has always turned out worse than allowing it.

@asahi

Fuck the first amendment if that is the case.

Great, then the govt gets to tell us what we can say, what we can believe, what we can hear, who we can congregate with, and whether or not we can address our grievances to it.

I heartily disagree, and I am glad that I am allowed to do so.

[Kimstu]

@Miller

“Most people” don’t know how to do it because they’ve never tried. If they wanted to, they could learn how to do it in an afternoon.

I mean, this could be part of a broader solution to the issue of excessive domination by monopolistic social media companies, just as the modern “maker community” movement has been pushing for greater diversity in manufacturing and craftsmanship than modern mass-manufacturing industry is able or willing to provide.

[DemonTree]

@Slash1972

I’m fairly certain that ‘most people’ can figure out how to hire a person to help them with their blog or web page.

So now only rich people have free speech?

@Miller

“Most people” don’t know how to do it because they’ve never tried. If they wanted to, they could learn how to do it in an afternoon.

Or only the technically inclined?

[k9bfriender]

@DSeid

Wink wink nudge nudge, say no more! A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat, squire!

Just repeating your conspiracy theory condescendingly doesn’t add any real weight to it, it just points out that you don’t have any basis for it.

@DSeid

OTOH yes I see timing of change of power being pretty damn clear to me.

If that is the case, then explain why twitter was pissing off Trump, while he was still in power, and while there was absolutely no certainty that Biden would win or that the dems would even hold the house, much less take the senate.

The fact that twitter was straight up appending to his tweets that what he was tweeting was untrue pretty much disproves your whole “currying favor” theory.

Further, as to your timing, he was suspended when at least one of the Georgia seats was still in question. However, it was after he had incited an insurrection against the govt.

And finally, if your conspiracy theory had any merit, that these companies are “currying favor” to those in charge, the remedy that you are asking for is for the govt to actually have control over them. That really makes no sense at all.

@DSeid

I’ve stated it several times and am not bothering to keep repeating. Sorry.

Yes, you have repeated this excuse a number of times, it doesn’t make it any more valid.

@DSeid

But more broadly, I will repeat one thing else from before: the argument technique of claiming that identifying a problem is dismissable if one does not have a solution for the problem at the ready, is a very poor one.

It’s not an argument “technique”, it is a straight up question.

@DSeid

Step one is alway identifying that there is a problem and defining it.

We have done that, disinformation can be harmful to our society. Done.

@DSeid

Step two is brainstorming on a selection of possible solutions to the problem, getting people who are most capable to be part of that process.

Okay then… that’s the step that we are on. Do you have any ideas?

@DSeid

Step three is identifying which of the possible solutions work best without causing greater harms and how to make it work.

Right, we do need to know what sort of remedy you are looking for, before we can see if it does more harm than good.

@DSeid

This thread is really still debating step one

Not really. Maybe that’s the step that you are stuck on, but everyone else has moved on.

@DSeid

to claim that doing such is meaningless because you have not already done step three to someone else’s satisfaction is downright silly.

That’s not the claim. The claim is that we have already identified that there is a problem, and if all you are doing is repeating that there is a problem, then you are simply repeating step one, and refusing to move on.

@DSeid

Heck, right now we have posters who literally claim that as long as they do nothing to “prevent me from posting”, and as long as the target is speech that “we” agree is “bad”, not “our”, “good” speech, there is no problem.

Not really. What is being claimed by these posters is that any remedies that they can think of will do more harm than good. If you have alternatives that you think would do more good than harm, we are all ears.

@DSeid

Again the guardrails ideally get placed before the trucks careen off the road.

Now you are talking about guardrails, which would be a remedy to the problem. But you refuse to say what these guardrails would look like.

@DSeid

Is there any level of market domination by a few companies that would concern you?

Concern is a different level than desiring to see legislation passed to alter them, their business model, and the way that we interact with them. Chik-fil-a concerns me, and I respond to that concern by not patronizing them, not by demanding govt action against them.

@DSeid

Is it even required to see that power being abused currently to put up protections against its future abuse?

Well, yes. I do think that we should act on concrete issues, rather than imagining problems. If all we do is imagine problems, then there is no way to balance those imagined problems against the harms that may be imposed to prevent those.

[snfaulkner]

Or anyone who can fucking read a book.

[Slash1972]

@DemonTree

So now only rich people have free speech?

Or only the technically inclined

Are these actually serious questions?

I don’t use Twitter myself, but it is my understanding that it requires some type of device which costs money, and some type of technical skill to log into Twitter. Are you saying only rich people and the technically inclined can use Twitter?

[Miller]

“Only rich people?” You can hire a web designer on Fiverr.

[ISiddiqui]

@asahi

Without being able to read minds, that might be true for some would-be message board owners. But reddit also does a lot to prevent messageboards from existing. It has killed many a message board over the years because of its massive influence and reach – as has Facebook.

I will note that reddit does have the financial ability to hire lawyers to comply with any new regulatory regime that replaces Section 230. SDMB does not. Now, granted, SDMB could go back to a pay message board to raise funds for that compliance.

That does raise another question do private boards or social media have a great right to restrict - using similar arguments as private clubs use?

Anyways, Facebook is really the only social media company that may be considered a monopoly, FWIW. I believe in terms of US social media share, Twitter only has 10%. Facebook is closer to 60%, IIRC.