Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

Ok...Commish Warren...

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think over the next 4 years social media as we know it is probably getting a complete makeover. Broken up, restricted access, possibly turned into a pay service. Twitter and Dorsey can probably see what's coming. But they're also a lot less susceptible to any kind of anti-trust suit as compared with Google or Facebook.

[Dr. Strangelove]

ErPhUZpWMAEsz66?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

[iam416]

I think over the next 4 years social media as we know it is probably getting a complete makeover. Broken up, restricted access, possibly turned into a pay service. Twitter and Dorsey can probably see what's coming. But they're also a lot less susceptible to any kind of anti-trust suit as compared with Google or Facebook.

I think it has to.

I mean, if Google Play and Apple deplatform your App, then your App is dead. I mean, DEAD.

We've discussed this ad naseum, but I still think you're dealing with quasi 1st Amendment issues that are especially prevalent when the market creates, essentially, two or three or four all-powerful decision-makers. The reason we have anti-trust law is to prevent this sort of accumulation of market power. And the real concern is that the those with market power are clearly censoring a certain viewpoint. That's not good.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think it has to.

I mean, if Google Play and Apple deplatform your App, then your App is dead. I mean, DEAD.

We've discussed this ad naseum, but I still think you're dealing with quasi 1st Amendment issues that are especially prevalent when the market creates, essentially, two or three or four all-powerful decision-makers. The reason we have anti-trust law is to prevent this sort of accumulation of market power. And the real concern is that the those with market power are clearly censoring a certain viewpoint. That's not good.

Yeah, I agree. They may force Google to spin off YouTube again...separate the App Store from Apple...make Facebook give up Instagram. I think the Tech companies know this is inevitable at this point

[iam416]

It's a really interesting anti-trust case because the market injury is non-traditional in the sense of squashing competitors. However, if, e.g., Standard Oil had decided that it would only sell gasoline to people driving Fords, then that would have been a real problem for the "after-markets" or related markets.

Eh, I just don't think it's sustainable and I don't think censorship serves the best interests of the country.

Anywho, today really should be a day to celebrate the glorious extension of HARBAUGH!!!!

[AlabamAlum]

It’s a slippery slope, Jeff, having the FTC try and determine what social media is ‘dangerous’ and which is spewing “misinformation” and I am 100% against trying to regulate the vast majority of (even hate) speech - despite the tired trope of ‘crying fire in a theater’ unless said hate speech directly calls for violence against a specific group or person.

I’m kind of a free speech radical in that I believe books like “The Turner Diaries” or websites like Stormfront should be free to do their thing unfettered, but I am also pro business and railed against Twitter and whatever being forced to allow idiots to spew whatever fecal rage they wish. I was one who said, “create your own social media and set your own rules!” Silly me.

Well, they did, and in turn Apple and Google who combined control over 99% of the market said they didn’t like the message and closed their doors to them. Now instead of saying “create your own social media app and make something to replace Twitter,” we are saying “create your own multi-billion dollar platform and make something to replace Google and Apple.”

I am not saying I have the answer but silencing voices was problematic before, but you at least could take your ball and leave create your own playing field. Now, Google and Apple have made that almost impossible. It’s worrisome to me. As always, your milage may vary.

[iam416]

Your biggest problem is that I agree with your First Amendment and concluding thoughts in their entirety. You may want to reconsider. I sure as fuck know that I am.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Twitter is one where I don't think there's really any justification or need for govt intervention. If they want to have tighter standards and apply them consistently (like ban the Ayatollah of Iran's account right now) then they have every right to do so. All they really are is a social media platform. They aren't the giant business or monopoly that Google, Apple, and Facebook have become.

[Dr. Strangelove]

BTW, I have never once used Facebook Marketplace but people don't appreciate how huge that has become. It rivals EBay now and dwarfs Craigslist.

[AlabamAlum]

Twitter is one where I don't think there's really any justification or need for govt intervention. If they want to have tighter standards and apply them consistently (like ban the Ayatollah of Iran's account right now) then they have every right to do so. All they really are is a social media platform. They aren't the giant business or monopoly that Google, Apple, and Facebook have become.

When it was just Twitter, FaceBook, Youtube, and Instagram shutting you down but now it’s Apple Store and Google Play? Yikes. Not a stretch to imagine basic internet conglomerates like Comcast and Charter (etc) following suit.

I have to admit now I was wrong with my pollyanna “hey guys! Just make your own version of Twitter!” horseshit. I was wrong. Talent and Hannibal were right and now I need a shower.

[iam416]

At present there is no regulatory framework to prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech on social media platforms. It's currently up to the platforms themselves to deal with it. That's the main reason why this won't "go over well." While there are some who self regulate either by not using social media or by limiting their activities if they do, there are other users of these platforms with dangerous motives for using them.

IMO, social media platforms should be regulated commercial entities subject to such regulation under the Federal Trade Commission as Congress might specify. I don't believe this is as much about free speech as it is about consumer protections and government's duty to follow the law. It is illegal, for example, for a company to label a product "Made in the USA" when it isn't. Regulations and enforcement of social media platforms become a lot easier if they were obligated to operate as commercial entities.

If an FTC regulatory process involving appropriately crafted laws were in effect for Twitter, most of Trump's false claims would have been illegal and both Twitter and the President could have been charged and prosecuted and subsequently fined. The lies and hate speech that people who post on Parler would also be illegal in the context of inciting lawless action.

Google has taken a step to limit it's liability as well as to make a statement about social media platforms filled with misinformation and hate speech. This isn't about the right of citizens to speak freely. It's about limiting words being used that are of such a nature as to create a "clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." or "the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".**

** Schenck v. US, 1919 (yelling fire in a theater), Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969 (clarified illegal speech with the imminent lawless action test).

Damn. I completely missed this. And whoa-boy is it wrong.

Here's the numero uno problem for Government regulation of social media -- It brings in the First Amendment. What was once private actors making private decisions is now regulated by the Federal Government and, ergo, subject to First Amendment protections.

And I have more news for you -- the First Amendment protects political speech far differently than it does commercial speech. So, yeah, you can regulate what P&G puts on its Crest labels. That's commercial speech. That purely informative speech. It ain't fucking political speech. When you get into political speech, regulations are going to be based on strict scrutiny standard. And for good reason. Political speech is foundational to our government and society in a way that the amount of #4 indigo dye in a toothpaste is not. FOUNDATIONAL. FULL STOP. The Marketplace of Ideas.

I wrote a law review article on specific First Amendment rights. I can tell you that they key word in Brandenburg is IMMINENT. Almost by defintion, Parler or Twitter is not speech that creates IMMINENT threats. What that means is, literally, standing in front of an angy mob and calling them to action. That's IMMINENT. Twitter is NOT.

Spreading "misinformation" is still protected by the First Amendment (with the exception of Defamation/Libel/Slander). Courts have almost zero interest in digging into assertions and figuring out if they're true or not. What they look at is the nature of the speech and apply the appropriate review. If it's political speech, then you need a goddamn crystal fucking clear reason to censor it, and misinformation ain't it. What -- are we going to start arresting candidates after Presidential debates because they were "misinformed"? Are we going to arrest those who spread the "Hands up, Don't shoot" misinformation? Goddamn, man. Fuck that shit.

[iam416]

(like ban the Ayatollah of Iran's account right now)

Isn't that where we are, now? I mean, does the Chinese Government have a twitter account? FFS.

[Dr. Strangelove]

When it was just Twitter, FaceBook, Youtube, and Instagram shutting you down but now it’s Apple Store and Google Play? Yikes. Not a stretch to imagine basic internet conglomerates like Comcast and Charter (etc) following suit.

I have to admit now I was wrong with my pollyanna “hey guys! Just make your own version of Twitter!” horseshit. I was wrong. Talent and Hannibal were right and now I need a shower.

Yes, but that's why i think the antitrust hammer is coming for Apple and Google. And I think they are aware of it.

I don't know if the Section 230 repeal is going to happen, but would Apple and Google become liable for every App they make available at that point? I'm unclear on that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Isn't that where we are, now? I mean, does the Chinese Government have a twitter account? FFS.

Yeah, go ahead an ban that one too. I think it was posting information about how pleasant reeducation camps are the other day.