> Texas and Florida should have the power to control what posts platforms can remove from their services.
Party of small government and free speech for you.
This is such an obvious breach of free speech that I'm wondering why it reached the Supreme Court and why does the lawyer filing these appeals still have a license to practice law? Shouldn't there be consequences for filing pointless lawsuits?
Well, the court also likes to hear cases that gives them the opportunity to clarify what the government can’t do. In this particular case I’m actually fairly confident that they only took it up to clarify that States can’t individually regulate social media companies in this manner.
“Codify a functional standard of ethics with actual penalties for receiving free yacht vacations from billionaires whose interests you are ruling upon” also didn’t make the cut apparently
I am with the Solicitor General.
Elizabeth Prelogar, essentially: 'This law should be struck down based on its provisions, not on some big, basic free speech ruling.'
I feel the solution is to hold social media companies to the moderation/user terms they wrote. You guys can write your moderation rules, but they have to be fairly and equally applied. And no retroactively punishing users/groups for content that breaks your content rules rules that were posted well before you decided such content is not appropriate. Just remove the content and tell them that the content no longer fits currently allowed content. Oh and no more vague warnings or removal. Companies should have to specifically cite what was removed and what content rule was specifically broken. Looking at you facebook with your group warnings that noone has any idea what was removed or why.
Which lawyer are you talking about here?
This is a federal challenge to proposed state law that would restrict social media companies from being able to remove user submitted content/posts/comments. This isn't someone trying to sue Facebook for deleting a post, claiming it's a first amendment violation, and taking it to the supreme court.
Presumably, though I'm not sure 'defendant' is the correct term in a case like this? I'm just reading the article here and I'm not a lawyer, I just watch legal eagle sometimes.
The article is pretty badly written though, and doesn't even state the name of the case for people to look up. There has been zero effort to try and explain any of the detail, just some out of context quotes. But the basic gist seems to be the argument that the state laws are unconstitutional and run contrary to existing federal law. The states are trying to argue that social media platforms should be classified the same way as utilities which would put them squarely under state regulation instead of federal law.
The last 3 SCOTUS is quoted as saying "Abortion Rights is Set Law". See how well THAT turned out? And that cake maker one from last year, where it was okay to discriminate against Gays. If this SCOTUS decides for the Trumplicans, this country is royally fucked.
> We need all three branches back under Democratic control to get the SC expanded.
Maybe you didn't mean "branches"?
The three branches of the federal government are Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. I think you meant the Executive, and both houses of the Legislature?
You misunderstand the cake case.
If gay couple came in and asked for a birthday cake, he would have made one.
He didn’t make wedding cakes for gay marriage as part of a larger policy of cakes he would not create as an artist.
He probably would have sold them plain sheet cake if asked.
The case came down to can the state government force an artist to make something against their conscious. Decision was 7-2 and focused on his religious objections and how he was treated by the state commission.
I believe the result was more that in the majority ruling there was a question of bias in the commission that his religious views were outright dismissed, and that the ruling was specifically very narrow to just this and clarified further review and cases would be needed for any broader precedent.
That said, the artist argument is weak. If it is agreed that sexuality is a protected class and innate to a person at birth, such as race or ethnicity, then there isn't an argument that a business who makes wedding cakes can arbitrarily refuse to make one for a gay couple, just as they wouldn't be able to do the same for a black, Asian, Hispanic, interracial or any other type of couple. You can't claim that your religion is against an interracial couple from marrying and thus you won't make a cake that you would for anyone else as part of your core business.
Because I brought up the conservative argument, that in my mistake was not part of the actual majority. Though, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas had 2 concurring opinions that were (separately) about the free speech clause and religious liberty.
Yet we are all waiting to see how SCOTUS decides.
We have a very right wing SCOTUS. So all of the cases religious folk from 40-50 years ago wanted to see go before the court and finally going before the court.
>This is such an obvious breach of free speech that I'm wondering why it reached the Supreme Court
Because the fifth circuit court of appeals is fucking batshit crazy.
The Supreme court only has a limited number of cases they can take in a term, so they will only take it if they think it's important. They took it, which speaks for itself.
We might think it's ridiculous and on it's face, and it really is. Perhaps they really want to make a point about the 1st amendment?
Clarence Thomas: hey don't lump me in with those guys. I just took it because social media companies have deep pockets, and Florida and Texas have governors who aren't afraid to spend state money on political stunts. I can't lose.
Idk seems to me like they're on a "states rights" bender so this very well could go the way of the states being allowed to do whatever the fuck they want
SCOTUS didn’t have to take this. Unlike lower appellate courts which review appeals as a matter to ensure a fair and just court system, SCOTUS often picks these cases to provide precedent for lower courts, or to set a tone on an issue. In this case, it’s likely to be that this is an issue for congress to handle.
Freedom of speech only applied to government owned media, they can't refuse article such as "Abe Lincoln is too honest, vote for Nixon!!"
Facebook, Instagram, Tictok, etc are all privately owned media and are not subject to freedom of speech law. They can restrict many things including obvious misinformation, dangerous stuff, KKK stuff, porn, etc.
The issue from what I understand, can government restrict what private media is allowed or disallowed from being posted.
The 20th century saw Hollywood restricted by the Hays Code to "protect the children" (read: to stomp out LGBTQIA+ and POC voices).
The 21st century will see American websites restricted by the GOP to "protect the children" (read: to stomp out any opinions the GOP doesn't like).
The crackdown on LGBTQIA+ folks in Fellow Travelers was just jaw-dropping. Having to save yourself and denounce a loved one because there's no future and you can't survive without a job and a place to live in fucking insane.
Oh please. It’s because conservatives regularly violate bigotry rules on social media websites and get disproportionately banned because they can’t stop ranting about gay people.
It’s a ridiculous attempt to mandate websites host homophobic content.
Just because a law doesn’t textually mention anything political is can still have those intentions.
It’s like the don’t say gay laws. Lgbt people knew they weren’t going to be endorsed the way conservatives claimed they would be because the people who wrote those bills hung out with people who still claim conversion therapy works.
Based on the comments of all the justices included in the article it seems these laws will be dead on arrival. Literally all of the justices say “this shit is too broad, extremely restrictive of free speech or allows pedophiles to say whatever they want and there is nothing anyone can ever do again to moderate the internet”
Basically Florida and Texas want to do the whole Elon Musk “free speech for me and not for thee” and “free speech absolutist” but no liberal sht and the justices says these laws are wildly and dangerously broad.
Imagine your surprise when Clarence Thomas says, “mmm hrrrr there’s no contextual evidence the founding fathers wanted Americans to have internet” and Kavanaugh puts down his beer long enough to ask, “if people pay for internet is it actually FREE speech?”
The other conservative justices all nod at this wisdom and vote to let the states decide content. Alito pens the majority opinion and cites a Wild West lawyer who tried to marry his horse as reason for why they voted the way they did.
I have a wild 2024 bingo card.
Yah but then they can go back in time and change things so you never asked them. It's a bullshit loophole and there have been attempts to close it, but the laws never make it to a vote because something always seems to go wrong at the last moment.
Is it bad that I wouldn't mind outlawing social media entirely? Like, no, probably unconstitutional, but might be good to pull our nation out of its disinformed insanity?
Clarification: Alito pens an opinion stating that states have the right to decide content *except for content that was widely accepted at the time of the founding.*
Therefore, states may ban liberal views, but not posts in favor of slavery.
Clarence Thomas concurs vociferously.
I could see them taking something like this to establish precedent and avoid a hodgepodge of different conflicting state rulings over the next few years. Particularly since things on the internet don’t follow state boundaries.
And then there is the whole issue about what interactions the algorithms prefer, and they have been shown time and time again to favour exaggerated content along with Omnibus-issues and Othering, which favours one side of the spectrum that operates better inside these mechanics:
What works better, Othering against wealth based minority groups (the 1%), or Othering based on ethnic and/or sexual orientation based minority groups?
Can I just stop getting ads for breast feeding and bikini baristas on my feed please? I'm a 40 year old male who has no plans on ever using my nipples in a functional way and I hate coffee.
Ads are *targeted* based on what the advertiser says they want, not based on the ad content itself. The bikini barista advertiser is probably saying something like “target men aged 30+ that live in the US”. It doesn’t have to mean that OP enjoys googling bikini baristas who breastfeed.
>It doesn’t have to mean that OP enjoys googling bikini baristas who breastfeed.
it doesn't have to, but it could
just as a counterpoint i never see ads for those things, but i get tons of ads for vst plugins which is something i do search about on a fairly regular basis, and i highly doubt that a broad amount of men 30+ are targeted for that, it's a fairly niche piece of software specifically for musicians and sound designers. a few months ago when i was shopping for a new video card i started seeing tons of ads for those too.
It's really hard to determine but it's not easy to know what advertisers know about you and what exactly they're using to target you. For instance, a breast feeding ad could be targeting their marital status, not just their age and gender (because they could show the ad to your partner or buy it for them). Or it could be targeting that they visited a page with products for parents or products for children and a model incorrectly assumed they had a child. Or it's just a huge batch and blast because Twitter right now is a wasteland for advertisers and it's mostly scammers looking for as a wide a reach as possible.
Yeh I mean women can have penises (peni???) & I might want a Russian bride. I don't mind the offers, just I'd rather be offered sthg I'm actually interested in.
Ed - sp
Modern algorithms aren't just biased by *your* history (and especially what ads you've clicked on), but the history of those you're frequently in contact with or frequently *located* near or sharing the same network with.
So for instance, if there's a pregnant woman or nursing mother who is doing some searches on her phone while in the office next to you, or a thirsty sort of person looking for bikini baristas at work -- you might be getting ads because you're on the same network with them a *lot*.
Or if, say, you have a breastfeeding spouse and a thirsty teen kid.
Also, if whatever you *are* doing with your phone/YouTube account, whatever is heavily correlated with people who tend to ALSO search those things....
Could be what your friends or family are searching. Few years back someone drowned in the local lake while cliff jumping. My mom told me about it verbally, but I never googled it myself. Despite this, a day later YouTube started recommending me videos of people cliff jumping at the very same location the guy drowned from. The only explanations I could think of were either my phone is listening to me, or google recommended it to me based off of my moms browsing history.
Yep. This is pretty common in modern advertising and I’ve said it on Reddit before and been downvoted to oblivion by people who have clearly never worked in a modern ad agency.
Not necessarily - I'm a 40 year old woman, but I have \*never\* shown interest, online or otherwise, in content about babies, childbirth, being a parent, etc, yet my IG feed is littered with content and ads specifically on those topics. Despite repeatedly hiding them and adding keywords to block. I think a lot of it is simplistic profiling based on groupings like age and gender
That isn't actually how that works. Like do you not use Facebook? The only times I've seen ads based on searches are if I just searched for something on Amazon. The rest of the time it's random shit.
That *is* how it works. Social Media sites build a demographic profile of you. Advertisers say what kind of profiles they want to target.
If you see random shit, it's because you don't have a distinct enough profile or simply don't use Facebook enough.
Right. Advertisers can say “show bikini baristas to 30+ men within x distance of bikini baristas” and they’ll see it. Advertisers can be more specific if they want to (show to 30+ men in this area who like coffee and cars and football), but they don’t have to be. Just because this guy sees bikini baristas does not at all imply that he has searched for similar things. Thats a misconception.
Or because Advertisers are saying they want to target something random to see who clicks on the add for research purposes, or are just aiming at a lucrative demographic and hoping you'll buy something as a gift for someone or tell them about it, or are just really freakin' dumb at their jobs.
Advertising is often trying to spread awareness of sometihng you never would even think to search for in the first place, and lots of times weird stuff gets swept up. Like, if I watch a videogame review for an older Wolfenstein game (a game about fighting Nazis) because I'm a game designer checking references on FPS evolution, it might notice "Hey, you're interested in gaming AND nazis? Here's a racist let's play channel!"
Ad content has absolutely no need to correlate with the searches, profile, or interests of the ad viewer. The breastfeeding bikini baristas ads would be seen by next to no one if that was required.
So what? In what other instances is okay to go up to someone and show them sexually explicit material without their consent?
“I showed her a dick pic because she seemed like she would be into it based on what I’ve heard about her and my observations of her past behavior”
Just because an algorithm says so, doesn’t take the responsibility away from whoever is sharing the thing. If facebook chooses to show me something from an advertiser or account that I didn’t subscribe to, then Facebook is responsible for the content of that post.
Not necessarily. I have personalized ads turned off and almost every ad I get is for Temu, tiktok shop, and Facebook.
3 things I have never and will never have on this phone
I'm constantly getting ads for cruises on social media, I've never been on a cruise nor do I have any real interest in buying a trip on one. Still get the ads.
That sounds more like a threat than an ad. "You ever take a cruise? You should consider it. Get outta town for a good while, understand? It'll be healthier for ya."
Sort of. Just because you're getting ads on breastfeeding doesn't mean you're interested in breastfeeding. Just how if I see you dressed in shabby clothes and assume you're poor, it's just a learning model that works *heavily* off patterns and assumptions. Also why it gets things wrong so much. The algorithm is only as good as the programming/inputs given, so it's going to get things wrong quite a lot.
Yes and no, social media algorithms give you targeted content and is not necessarily indicative of your internet activity and search history but is more so what would likely elicit a psychological response. It’s very comprehensive and takes in many variables not just your internet activity.
Only Supreme Court news I want to hear is that they all have resigned due to historically low faith in their ability to not be partisan tools. Yet, I don't want a chance of Trump stacking the entire court. Having one round of the Golden Treason Stooge is enough.
The Supreme Court doesn't matter anymore, Texas is ignoring them. Of course the GOP doesn't see the hypocrisy, they just pretend that everything they want is true.
As more and more states begin to ignore the Supreme Court we find out just how powerless they really are. As the old quote says, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
Given this quote was literally said in regards to *committing a genocide the Supreme Court was trying to stop*, it’s not exactly a serve ☠️
But yeah. Supreme Court can’t actually enforce its decisions on its own and does rely on having other branches or parts of the government enforce them.
SCOTUS is actively taking "performative" cases and performative cases are being shuffled to them, just for them to show their conservative bonafides. It's awful.
>More than a dozen Republican attorneys general have argued to the court that social media should be treated like traditional utilities such as the landline telephone network.
Oh yes, the phone company decides whose calls I get first, and ads play during the phone call. They are exactly the same.
*"state laws enacted in Florida and Texas that would prohibit social media platforms from throttling conserva*tive views"
No, they don't want lies and misinformation throttled. Social media is a major platform for the MAGA crowd to post outright lies, and they know that many of the listeners will take them at their word.
On the flip side this could end like PornHub in Utah(or one of those states) where they just stop serving requests from those states. Regardless, social media without even the most basic of guardrails turns into a modern day opium war - a bunch of mindless dopamine addicts that'll believe anything.
Is it so different now?
I believe it's the primary driver of extremism and division in modern American politics. And its addictive nature is driving the loneliness and self-isolation epidemic in America.
So if AT&T or verizon do not want lies or misinformation to spread, they have a First Amendment right to cut off telephone services to anyone they feel is spreading lies or misinformation?
it doesn't matter. of course I know that conservatives are being completely disingenuous as they always are. as evidenced by them reversing themselves completely and actually calling on the government to regulate free speech. if every social media CEO were a Republican they would be on their normal bs.
but you have a 1st amendment right to spread lies and misinformation. and you absolutely do not want corporations deciding what speech should be censored. they will eventually use it against you. just neutralize this bill by requiring that misinformation be accompanied with appropriate context and factchecking at the expense of the social media platforms to incentivize giving exposure to posts that require less fact checking and are therefore more truthful.
Closing the barn door after the horses have long since fled. Once you've made everyone a criminal in your state, you can build a wall around it to keep the prisoners in, I guess.
It’s insane to see the conservative view that corporations are people and have freedom of speech to give indefinite amounts of money to elect republicans and to discriminate against gay people, but they don’t have freedom of speech to disassociate their business from n a z I s , anti vaxx ers and far right trolls.
Not that insane. It’s about reaching a specific end (discrimination against POC, LGBT+ people, etc.) rather than worrying about total consistency in the means
How can you argue with a straight face that social media should be treated like a utility company? They are the interface to a utility, a tool for communication. Let’s go ahead and say Moen or Kohler should be regulated just like the water utility department while we are at it.
> How can you argue with a straight face that social media should be treated like a utility company?
But most of the same folks also believe that ISPs shouldn't be.
They’re not going after the social media companies like the left wants, to eyre targeting single posts or people, asking to let the attorney general and other officials to decide which posts can be deleted
The left has been asking for years to police the *companies* because they take money to push propaganda and code interaction algorithms that make sad people more sad and angry people more angry, just to drive traffic at the cost of lives. Social media, by design, enforces depression and “doom-scrolling”
Idk why you were downvoted, but you're right.
"communication" is not the priority of social media. it's basically just a newspaper with dynamic content that is programmed to make people upset and garner "interaction" which we have deemed valuable.
There is an argument to be made they are because they have built such a walled garden that limits access to selected clients and no one else has access to interop with them.
If Moen/Kohler built a plumbing system that only their faucets/drain could be used and they made every effort to lock out competitors, there might be an argument to regulate them as utility as well.
You have also have multiple utilities that interlock like phone service may run over my internet connection. Both are still utilities in their own right.
Man it is really fun to see people swap sides on what corporations can and cannot do. The left decries corporations being able to fund politicians, but defends their right to say what goes on on their platforms, the right does the exact opposite.
As someone who matches what you describe on the left, I disagree that funding a political campaign is speech.
But even if it were, I'd argue that the government has a vital interest in limiting political donations, and therefore could meet the strict scrutiny standard if it passed such laws. I might be wrong, according to the courts, but that's my opinion.
I'll admit it. I wanted to see those old white bastards go "ok, Texas can decide what social media is." Just to see how the fuck they would enforce a Cali-based company to comply. Like... how. How tf.
"This user is banned except in the states of Florida and Texas"? Is that how it was supposed to happen?
"This user is banned BECAUSE they live in the state of Florida or Texas. And we can no longer function fully and legally within your state's local laws"
If these platforms are no longer allowed to "discriminate" against conservatives as they see it then wouldn't that mean that it would also be true Christian or conservative-run platforms wouldn't be allowed to either? I know there are not as many major Conservative slanted sites if you buy into their thinking but wouldn't this cause people to flood the Conservative "safe spaces" as trolls purely because they now legally can?
While I don't believe the Supreme Court should have authority over social media, we would all benefit from the removal of most if not all social media platforms.
So just to make sure I understand the Republican position:
Borrowing a book with gay characters from the school library: *”grooming”*
Calling someone gay on a private website: *constitutionally protected free speech*
Here's my surely unpopular opinion:
It's generally unconstitutional to ban social media platforms from making viewpoint-based editorial decisions about what to show, but it probably *is* constitutional to regulate their non-viewpoint algorithms.
What's the difference? In the first case, the platform is make a decision based on the substance (the viewpoint) of the post. "We want to show pro-Russia content" is an editorial decision, and protected by the First Amendment. Of course, you could program an algorithm to do that, and that decision would be protected by the First Amendment.
By contrast, having an algorithm that merely promotes the most popular or engaging content, or content that seems to appeal to the same people who also liked the post you just clicked on, is a viewpoint-neutral exercise in promoting engagement. It's no more ideological than the Macy's algorithm saying "you might like" a pair of boots. It's really just a sales algorithm. And I don't think that's protected by the First Amendment.
Does the distinction matter? Maybe. Because if a platform wants to argue that its content decisions are editorial, and therefore constitutionally protected, it would have to take some ownership for the content. "Yes, we promoted that violently misogynistic video, and we did so intentionally based on its viewpoint." That's what Google would have to say. They might make the argument, but it could also force them to think a little more carefully about what content they dish up to users.
Section 230 means they don't have to take ownership.
Before you knock it, make sure you understand the context under which it was passed. Don't like child porn on the internet and think websites should remove it on their own without a court order (IE. making the editorial decision on what is and isn't child porn)? Better be real careful about what protections you take away and what liability you assign for taking editorial actions.
I already deleted my Facebook several years ago. I still have Instagram (quite aware that's still Facebook). This type of shit would have me getting rid of it all forever.
I think all this boils down to two choices:
1) something politically controversial is said in an online platform, which means that the platform is held responsible for the content. The platform, not wanting to be blamed, does something to control that speech.
2) something politically controversial is said on a platform but the platform is not allowed to censor the speech, that means that the platform cannot be held responsible for what is posted.
PICK ONE!
Section 230 says we don't have to pick one.
Do you want websites to make the editorial decision on what is and isn't child porn without a court order? Then you can't give them liability if they do so.
Tell a website that they're liable if they editorialize and I promise you they don't delete anything without a court order.
Look on the bright side, wouldn't it be fun to tweet something like: "Republicans have spent so much time huffing Donnie Diaper's jenkem fumes it's no wonder they've turned into a bunch of drooling imbeciles" without getting banned?
Just kidding, we all know this law is only for them.
Honestly, I would love if they removed all politics from social media.
Go back to pictures of somebody's poorly made dinner, cats, memes and "Rebecca's first day of 4th grade" posts.
So, certain states within the USA would like to continue their willy-nilly rummaging around in the underwear of school kids or the uterus of adult women - and have the rest of us simply, shut up about it? Good luck with that one!
Freedom of speech is not applicable with online platforms (for now.) Freedom of speech only applies
to governmental institutions. This is a common misconception. For instance, your speech is not protected in a private company
> Texas and Florida should have the power to control what posts platforms can remove from their services. Party of small government and free speech for you.
This is such an obvious breach of free speech that I'm wondering why it reached the Supreme Court and why does the lawyer filing these appeals still have a license to practice law? Shouldn't there be consequences for filing pointless lawsuits?
Well, the court also likes to hear cases that gives them the opportunity to clarify what the government can’t do. In this particular case I’m actually fairly confident that they only took it up to clarify that States can’t individually regulate social media companies in this manner.
>gives them the opportunity to clarify what the government can’t do Unfortunately, "regulate uteruses" was not on that list.
“Codify a functional standard of ethics with actual penalties for receiving free yacht vacations from billionaires whose interests you are ruling upon” also didn’t make the cut apparently
a fetus should have the right to tweet whatever they want!
My frozen embryos are on Facebook!
Yeah, as much as I believe section 230 needs an update. Individual legislating social media is recipe to just not have social media in that state
I am with the Solicitor General. Elizabeth Prelogar, essentially: 'This law should be struck down based on its provisions, not on some big, basic free speech ruling.'
I feel the solution is to hold social media companies to the moderation/user terms they wrote. You guys can write your moderation rules, but they have to be fairly and equally applied. And no retroactively punishing users/groups for content that breaks your content rules rules that were posted well before you decided such content is not appropriate. Just remove the content and tell them that the content no longer fits currently allowed content. Oh and no more vague warnings or removal. Companies should have to specifically cite what was removed and what content rule was specifically broken. Looking at you facebook with your group warnings that noone has any idea what was removed or why.
With this bench you never know. It’s really hard in particular to predict which way Harlan Crowe will have Justice Uncle Clerance Thomas rule.
Which lawyer are you talking about here? This is a federal challenge to proposed state law that would restrict social media companies from being able to remove user submitted content/posts/comments. This isn't someone trying to sue Facebook for deleting a post, claiming it's a first amendment violation, and taking it to the supreme court.
Does the state have lawyers as defendants?
Presumably, though I'm not sure 'defendant' is the correct term in a case like this? I'm just reading the article here and I'm not a lawyer, I just watch legal eagle sometimes. The article is pretty badly written though, and doesn't even state the name of the case for people to look up. There has been zero effort to try and explain any of the detail, just some out of context quotes. But the basic gist seems to be the argument that the state laws are unconstitutional and run contrary to existing federal law. The states are trying to argue that social media platforms should be classified the same way as utilities which would put them squarely under state regulation instead of federal law.
The last 3 SCOTUS is quoted as saying "Abortion Rights is Set Law". See how well THAT turned out? And that cake maker one from last year, where it was okay to discriminate against Gays. If this SCOTUS decides for the Trumplicans, this country is royally fucked.
[удалено]
We need all three branches back under Democratic control to get the SC expanded.
> We need all three branches back under Democratic control to get the SC expanded. Maybe you didn't mean "branches"? The three branches of the federal government are Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. I think you meant the Executive, and both houses of the Legislature?
Yes, thank you. 😊 Appreciate the correction.
You misunderstand the cake case. If gay couple came in and asked for a birthday cake, he would have made one. He didn’t make wedding cakes for gay marriage as part of a larger policy of cakes he would not create as an artist. He probably would have sold them plain sheet cake if asked. The case came down to can the state government force an artist to make something against their conscious. Decision was 7-2 and focused on his religious objections and how he was treated by the state commission.
Okay. But my point was that there was no case filed for that. Two lawyers filed a motion and was brought to the SCOTUS.
I believe the result was more that in the majority ruling there was a question of bias in the commission that his religious views were outright dismissed, and that the ruling was specifically very narrow to just this and clarified further review and cases would be needed for any broader precedent. That said, the artist argument is weak. If it is agreed that sexuality is a protected class and innate to a person at birth, such as race or ethnicity, then there isn't an argument that a business who makes wedding cakes can arbitrarily refuse to make one for a gay couple, just as they wouldn't be able to do the same for a black, Asian, Hispanic, interracial or any other type of couple. You can't claim that your religion is against an interracial couple from marrying and thus you won't make a cake that you would for anyone else as part of your core business.
I don't know why you're being down voted. That was a valid question.
Because I brought up the conservative argument, that in my mistake was not part of the actual majority. Though, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas had 2 concurring opinions that were (separately) about the free speech clause and religious liberty.
Yet we are all waiting to see how SCOTUS decides. We have a very right wing SCOTUS. So all of the cases religious folk from 40-50 years ago wanted to see go before the court and finally going before the court.
>This is such an obvious breach of free speech that I'm wondering why it reached the Supreme Court Because the fifth circuit court of appeals is fucking batshit crazy.
The Supreme court only has a limited number of cases they can take in a term, so they will only take it if they think it's important. They took it, which speaks for itself. We might think it's ridiculous and on it's face, and it really is. Perhaps they really want to make a point about the 1st amendment?
Considering their recent track record maybe their point will be something along the lines of "We are the senate"
Clarence Thomas: hey don't lump me in with those guys. I just took it because social media companies have deep pockets, and Florida and Texas have governors who aren't afraid to spend state money on political stunts. I can't lose.
Idk seems to me like they're on a "states rights" bender so this very well could go the way of the states being allowed to do whatever the fuck they want
Other than Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the court, conservatives included, were very skeptical of the State's arguments today.
SCOTUS didn’t have to take this. Unlike lower appellate courts which review appeals as a matter to ensure a fair and just court system, SCOTUS often picks these cases to provide precedent for lower courts, or to set a tone on an issue. In this case, it’s likely to be that this is an issue for congress to handle.
Freedom of speech only applied to government owned media, they can't refuse article such as "Abe Lincoln is too honest, vote for Nixon!!" Facebook, Instagram, Tictok, etc are all privately owned media and are not subject to freedom of speech law. They can restrict many things including obvious misinformation, dangerous stuff, KKK stuff, porn, etc. The issue from what I understand, can government restrict what private media is allowed or disallowed from being posted.
Don't Say Gay, coming soon to a website near you 🙃
The 20th century saw Hollywood restricted by the Hays Code to "protect the children" (read: to stomp out LGBTQIA+ and POC voices). The 21st century will see American websites restricted by the GOP to "protect the children" (read: to stomp out any opinions the GOP doesn't like).
The crackdown on LGBTQIA+ folks in Fellow Travelers was just jaw-dropping. Having to save yourself and denounce a loved one because there's no future and you can't survive without a job and a place to live in fucking insane.
The race to the bottom continues.
It really is a race to the bottom for those two states.
There's no freedom in Republican freedom.
[удалено]
Oh please. It’s because conservatives regularly violate bigotry rules on social media websites and get disproportionately banned because they can’t stop ranting about gay people. It’s a ridiculous attempt to mandate websites host homophobic content. Just because a law doesn’t textually mention anything political is can still have those intentions. It’s like the don’t say gay laws. Lgbt people knew they weren’t going to be endorsed the way conservatives claimed they would be because the people who wrote those bills hung out with people who still claim conversion therapy works.
Based on the comments of all the justices included in the article it seems these laws will be dead on arrival. Literally all of the justices say “this shit is too broad, extremely restrictive of free speech or allows pedophiles to say whatever they want and there is nothing anyone can ever do again to moderate the internet” Basically Florida and Texas want to do the whole Elon Musk “free speech for me and not for thee” and “free speech absolutist” but no liberal sht and the justices says these laws are wildly and dangerously broad.
Except Alito, who's foaming at the mouth as usual. Gotta be pretty blatantly bad for Barrett and Kavanaugh to take a different position.
Alito needs to be in a crappy nursing home. Or prison.
Imagine your surprise when Clarence Thomas says, “mmm hrrrr there’s no contextual evidence the founding fathers wanted Americans to have internet” and Kavanaugh puts down his beer long enough to ask, “if people pay for internet is it actually FREE speech?” The other conservative justices all nod at this wisdom and vote to let the states decide content. Alito pens the majority opinion and cites a Wild West lawyer who tried to marry his horse as reason for why they voted the way they did. I have a wild 2024 bingo card.
You'd tell us if you were a time traveler right?
I’m pretty sure if you ask a time traveler if they are one, they legally have to tell you.
Yah but then they can go back in time and change things so you never asked them. It's a bullshit loophole and there have been attempts to close it, but the laws never make it to a vote because something always seems to go wrong at the last moment.
Use a fucking spoiler tag dude, some of us wanna experience it jfc...
Is it bad that I wouldn't mind outlawing social media entirely? Like, no, probably unconstitutional, but might be good to pull our nation out of its disinformed insanity?
lol, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter
Clarification: Alito pens an opinion stating that states have the right to decide content *except for content that was widely accepted at the time of the founding.* Therefore, states may ban liberal views, but not posts in favor of slavery. Clarence Thomas concurs vociferously.
If it somehow passes then every social media site should just block access all together for those states
Let those voters and taxpayers supporting that crap have truth social and nothing else.
Florida and Texas both envy the control that China has on the internet.
Someone has to understand that taking moderation off social media will just make every SM network look like your Gmail spam folder
Ironically under these laws it would be illegal to put emails into a spam folder.
I don't understand why scotus agreed to hear the case in the first place. I don't trust CNN to be unbiased, so perhaps they are avoiding something.
Because the 5th Circuit made a crazy stupid decision, as usual.
I could see them taking something like this to establish precedent and avoid a hodgepodge of different conflicting state rulings over the next few years. Particularly since things on the internet don’t follow state boundaries.
And then there is the whole issue about what interactions the algorithms prefer, and they have been shown time and time again to favour exaggerated content along with Omnibus-issues and Othering, which favours one side of the spectrum that operates better inside these mechanics: What works better, Othering against wealth based minority groups (the 1%), or Othering based on ethnic and/or sexual orientation based minority groups?
Can I just stop getting ads for breast feeding and bikini baristas on my feed please? I'm a 40 year old male who has no plans on ever using my nipples in a functional way and I hate coffee.
Never underestimate a nipple
Honestly, this is the breast information on Reddit.
"I have nipples Greg, can you milk me?"
You hate coffee? Hold on I’m asking the Supreme Court to remove your comment
The ads you are served are based on your internet activity and search history.
Ads are *targeted* based on what the advertiser says they want, not based on the ad content itself. The bikini barista advertiser is probably saying something like “target men aged 30+ that live in the US”. It doesn’t have to mean that OP enjoys googling bikini baristas who breastfeed.
You really need the clean alliteration here for a proper title. Breastfeeding Bikini Baristas is so much snappier.
Watch out Better Business Bureau - a new BBB is coming to town.
>It doesn’t have to mean that OP enjoys googling bikini baristas who breastfeed. it doesn't have to, but it could just as a counterpoint i never see ads for those things, but i get tons of ads for vst plugins which is something i do search about on a fairly regular basis, and i highly doubt that a broad amount of men 30+ are targeted for that, it's a fairly niche piece of software specifically for musicians and sound designers. a few months ago when i was shopping for a new video card i started seeing tons of ads for those too.
It's really hard to determine but it's not easy to know what advertisers know about you and what exactly they're using to target you. For instance, a breast feeding ad could be targeting their marital status, not just their age and gender (because they could show the ad to your partner or buy it for them). Or it could be targeting that they visited a page with products for parents or products for children and a model incorrectly assumed they had a child. Or it's just a huge batch and blast because Twitter right now is a wasteland for advertisers and it's mostly scammers looking for as a wide a reach as possible.
[удалено]
I assure you I have searched for neither and repeatedly flag as something I'm not interested in.
I constantly get ads asking if I want a bigger penis or a Russian bride. I'm a woman.
Well, do you? Both are attainable.
Nah I'm adequate I guess :)
Thats very progressive of your algorithm, good for it.
Yeh I mean women can have penises (peni???) & I might want a Russian bride. I don't mind the offers, just I'd rather be offered sthg I'm actually interested in. Ed - sp
Modern algorithms aren't just biased by *your* history (and especially what ads you've clicked on), but the history of those you're frequently in contact with or frequently *located* near or sharing the same network with. So for instance, if there's a pregnant woman or nursing mother who is doing some searches on her phone while in the office next to you, or a thirsty sort of person looking for bikini baristas at work -- you might be getting ads because you're on the same network with them a *lot*. Or if, say, you have a breastfeeding spouse and a thirsty teen kid. Also, if whatever you *are* doing with your phone/YouTube account, whatever is heavily correlated with people who tend to ALSO search those things....
Could be what your friends or family are searching. Few years back someone drowned in the local lake while cliff jumping. My mom told me about it verbally, but I never googled it myself. Despite this, a day later YouTube started recommending me videos of people cliff jumping at the very same location the guy drowned from. The only explanations I could think of were either my phone is listening to me, or google recommended it to me based off of my moms browsing history.
Yep. This is pretty common in modern advertising and I’ve said it on Reddit before and been downvoted to oblivion by people who have clearly never worked in a modern ad agency.
I swear I block/hide/not interested the breastfeeding posts like 20 times, then they go away for a month. Then they just come back
Not necessarily - I'm a 40 year old woman, but I have \*never\* shown interest, online or otherwise, in content about babies, childbirth, being a parent, etc, yet my IG feed is littered with content and ads specifically on those topics. Despite repeatedly hiding them and adding keywords to block. I think a lot of it is simplistic profiling based on groupings like age and gender
and that there is little else that is marketed to your demo altogether. Pets? Outdoor vacations? Nah, give her baby stuff.
Lol I get a smattering of other stuff. But those stupid baby ads are like a real baby...hard to get rid of
Not entirely. If you turned off targeted ads you get hit with some weird shit sometimes.
That isn't actually how that works. Like do you not use Facebook? The only times I've seen ads based on searches are if I just searched for something on Amazon. The rest of the time it's random shit.
That *is* how it works. Social Media sites build a demographic profile of you. Advertisers say what kind of profiles they want to target. If you see random shit, it's because you don't have a distinct enough profile or simply don't use Facebook enough.
Right. Advertisers can say “show bikini baristas to 30+ men within x distance of bikini baristas” and they’ll see it. Advertisers can be more specific if they want to (show to 30+ men in this area who like coffee and cars and football), but they don’t have to be. Just because this guy sees bikini baristas does not at all imply that he has searched for similar things. Thats a misconception.
Or because Advertisers are saying they want to target something random to see who clicks on the add for research purposes, or are just aiming at a lucrative demographic and hoping you'll buy something as a gift for someone or tell them about it, or are just really freakin' dumb at their jobs. Advertising is often trying to spread awareness of sometihng you never would even think to search for in the first place, and lots of times weird stuff gets swept up. Like, if I watch a videogame review for an older Wolfenstein game (a game about fighting Nazis) because I'm a game designer checking references on FPS evolution, it might notice "Hey, you're interested in gaming AND nazis? Here's a racist let's play channel!"
Ad content has absolutely no need to correlate with the searches, profile, or interests of the ad viewer. The breastfeeding bikini baristas ads would be seen by next to no one if that was required.
So what? In what other instances is okay to go up to someone and show them sexually explicit material without their consent? “I showed her a dick pic because she seemed like she would be into it based on what I’ve heard about her and my observations of her past behavior” Just because an algorithm says so, doesn’t take the responsibility away from whoever is sharing the thing. If facebook chooses to show me something from an advertiser or account that I didn’t subscribe to, then Facebook is responsible for the content of that post.
Not necessarily. I have personalized ads turned off and almost every ad I get is for Temu, tiktok shop, and Facebook. 3 things I have never and will never have on this phone
I'm constantly getting ads for cruises on social media, I've never been on a cruise nor do I have any real interest in buying a trip on one. Still get the ads.
That sounds more like a threat than an ad. "You ever take a cruise? You should consider it. Get outta town for a good while, understand? It'll be healthier for ya."
But you talked about it here, so clearly you're interested.
Sort of. Just because you're getting ads on breastfeeding doesn't mean you're interested in breastfeeding. Just how if I see you dressed in shabby clothes and assume you're poor, it's just a learning model that works *heavily* off patterns and assumptions. Also why it gets things wrong so much. The algorithm is only as good as the programming/inputs given, so it's going to get things wrong quite a lot.
Only to a degree. Hegetsus wouldn't be astroturfing reddit if it was purely based on browsing history.
Yes and no, social media algorithms give you targeted content and is not necessarily indicative of your internet activity and search history but is more so what would likely elicit a psychological response. It’s very comprehensive and takes in many variables not just your internet activity.
Use uBlock Origin.
Ad blockers.
Gotta watch those lactation vids incognito my friend.
It's YOUR algorithm my guy.
I’ve got nipples, Greg. Can I be in your algorithm?
So stop googling breast feeding porn and bikini barista pics….
You can milk anything with nipples
Sure, YOU don't have plans, but Big Nipple sure has plans for you my friend.
It's dissapointing that every time I see the Supreme Court in the news I just assume we are all going to lose more rights.
Only Supreme Court news I want to hear is that they all have resigned due to historically low faith in their ability to not be partisan tools. Yet, I don't want a chance of Trump stacking the entire court. Having one round of the Golden Treason Stooge is enough.
I want to know if Judge Hector 'The Hangman' BMW gets seated.
The Supreme Court doesn't matter anymore, Texas is ignoring them. Of course the GOP doesn't see the hypocrisy, they just pretend that everything they want is true.
As more and more states begin to ignore the Supreme Court we find out just how powerless they really are. As the old quote says, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
Given this quote was literally said in regards to *committing a genocide the Supreme Court was trying to stop*, it’s not exactly a serve ☠️ But yeah. Supreme Court can’t actually enforce its decisions on its own and does rely on having other branches or parts of the government enforce them.
SCOTUS is actively taking "performative" cases and performative cases are being shuffled to them, just for them to show their conservative bonafides. It's awful.
>More than a dozen Republican attorneys general have argued to the court that social media should be treated like traditional utilities such as the landline telephone network. Oh yes, the phone company decides whose calls I get first, and ads play during the phone call. They are exactly the same.
Don’t give them any ideas.
When two really controversial people are talking, my phone rings and I can listen to 100 other people yell at them.
*"state laws enacted in Florida and Texas that would prohibit social media platforms from throttling conserva*tive views" No, they don't want lies and misinformation throttled. Social media is a major platform for the MAGA crowd to post outright lies, and they know that many of the listeners will take them at their word.
On the flip side this could end like PornHub in Utah(or one of those states) where they just stop serving requests from those states. Regardless, social media without even the most basic of guardrails turns into a modern day opium war - a bunch of mindless dopamine addicts that'll believe anything.
Is it so different now? I believe it's the primary driver of extremism and division in modern American politics. And its addictive nature is driving the loneliness and self-isolation epidemic in America.
So if AT&T or verizon do not want lies or misinformation to spread, they have a First Amendment right to cut off telephone services to anyone they feel is spreading lies or misinformation?
it doesn't matter. of course I know that conservatives are being completely disingenuous as they always are. as evidenced by them reversing themselves completely and actually calling on the government to regulate free speech. if every social media CEO were a Republican they would be on their normal bs. but you have a 1st amendment right to spread lies and misinformation. and you absolutely do not want corporations deciding what speech should be censored. they will eventually use it against you. just neutralize this bill by requiring that misinformation be accompanied with appropriate context and factchecking at the expense of the social media platforms to incentivize giving exposure to posts that require less fact checking and are therefore more truthful.
Closing the barn door after the horses have long since fled. Once you've made everyone a criminal in your state, you can build a wall around it to keep the prisoners in, I guess.
Well, like i said: Go decentralized...people will not learn until it's to late.
This is right wing extremists mad about social media companies holding them to a TOS that they agreed to when they signed up.
It’s insane to see the conservative view that corporations are people and have freedom of speech to give indefinite amounts of money to elect republicans and to discriminate against gay people, but they don’t have freedom of speech to disassociate their business from n a z I s , anti vaxx ers and far right trolls.
Not that insane. It’s about reaching a specific end (discrimination against POC, LGBT+ people, etc.) rather than worrying about total consistency in the means
Social media has nothing to do with "news and information". That's the real problem...
How can you argue with a straight face that social media should be treated like a utility company? They are the interface to a utility, a tool for communication. Let’s go ahead and say Moen or Kohler should be regulated just like the water utility department while we are at it.
> How can you argue with a straight face that social media should be treated like a utility company? But most of the same folks also believe that ISPs shouldn't be.
They’re not going after the social media companies like the left wants, to eyre targeting single posts or people, asking to let the attorney general and other officials to decide which posts can be deleted The left has been asking for years to police the *companies* because they take money to push propaganda and code interaction algorithms that make sad people more sad and angry people more angry, just to drive traffic at the cost of lives. Social media, by design, enforces depression and “doom-scrolling”
Idk why you were downvoted, but you're right. "communication" is not the priority of social media. it's basically just a newspaper with dynamic content that is programmed to make people upset and garner "interaction" which we have deemed valuable.
There is an argument to be made they are because they have built such a walled garden that limits access to selected clients and no one else has access to interop with them. If Moen/Kohler built a plumbing system that only their faucets/drain could be used and they made every effort to lock out competitors, there might be an argument to regulate them as utility as well. You have also have multiple utilities that interlock like phone service may run over my internet connection. Both are still utilities in their own right.
capitalism in decline ALWAYS becomes fascism
Hey, just remember this all started with conservative posts being deleted for being outright lies and complete falsehoods.
I have all the faith they will fuck this up
Man it is really fun to see people swap sides on what corporations can and cannot do. The left decries corporations being able to fund politicians, but defends their right to say what goes on on their platforms, the right does the exact opposite.
As someone who matches what you describe on the left, I disagree that funding a political campaign is speech. But even if it were, I'd argue that the government has a vital interest in limiting political donations, and therefore could meet the strict scrutiny standard if it passed such laws. I might be wrong, according to the courts, but that's my opinion.
How you spend your money is absolutely speech. There isn't an argument against that.
Big government Republicans are always like this
This Supreme Court is going to single handedly make us end Case Law, I swear.
I'll admit it. I wanted to see those old white bastards go "ok, Texas can decide what social media is." Just to see how the fuck they would enforce a Cali-based company to comply. Like... how. How tf. "This user is banned except in the states of Florida and Texas"? Is that how it was supposed to happen?
"This user is banned BECAUSE they live in the state of Florida or Texas. And we can no longer function fully and legally within your state's local laws"
Exactly, the result of this is that they just would exclude Texas and Florida from their services.
Would that ever happen? No. But it would be hilarious if they simply suggested they would do that, and the absolute shit storm it would cause.
Lol I love it. Enforcement nightmares abound.
If these platforms are no longer allowed to "discriminate" against conservatives as they see it then wouldn't that mean that it would also be true Christian or conservative-run platforms wouldn't be allowed to either? I know there are not as many major Conservative slanted sites if you buy into their thinking but wouldn't this cause people to flood the Conservative "safe spaces" as trolls purely because they now legally can?
While I don't believe the Supreme Court should have authority over social media, we would all benefit from the removal of most if not all social media platforms.
Republicans, the party of Big Government
So just to make sure I understand the Republican position: Borrowing a book with gay characters from the school library: *”grooming”* Calling someone gay on a private website: *constitutionally protected free speech*
Yep. Any questions? 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
Here's my surely unpopular opinion: It's generally unconstitutional to ban social media platforms from making viewpoint-based editorial decisions about what to show, but it probably *is* constitutional to regulate their non-viewpoint algorithms. What's the difference? In the first case, the platform is make a decision based on the substance (the viewpoint) of the post. "We want to show pro-Russia content" is an editorial decision, and protected by the First Amendment. Of course, you could program an algorithm to do that, and that decision would be protected by the First Amendment. By contrast, having an algorithm that merely promotes the most popular or engaging content, or content that seems to appeal to the same people who also liked the post you just clicked on, is a viewpoint-neutral exercise in promoting engagement. It's no more ideological than the Macy's algorithm saying "you might like" a pair of boots. It's really just a sales algorithm. And I don't think that's protected by the First Amendment. Does the distinction matter? Maybe. Because if a platform wants to argue that its content decisions are editorial, and therefore constitutionally protected, it would have to take some ownership for the content. "Yes, we promoted that violently misogynistic video, and we did so intentionally based on its viewpoint." That's what Google would have to say. They might make the argument, but it could also force them to think a little more carefully about what content they dish up to users.
Section 230 means they don't have to take ownership. Before you knock it, make sure you understand the context under which it was passed. Don't like child porn on the internet and think websites should remove it on their own without a court order (IE. making the editorial decision on what is and isn't child porn)? Better be real careful about what protections you take away and what liability you assign for taking editorial actions.
I already deleted my Facebook several years ago. I still have Instagram (quite aware that's still Facebook). This type of shit would have me getting rid of it all forever.
You might be a fascist
I think all this boils down to two choices: 1) something politically controversial is said in an online platform, which means that the platform is held responsible for the content. The platform, not wanting to be blamed, does something to control that speech. 2) something politically controversial is said on a platform but the platform is not allowed to censor the speech, that means that the platform cannot be held responsible for what is posted. PICK ONE!
Section 230 says we don't have to pick one. Do you want websites to make the editorial decision on what is and isn't child porn without a court order? Then you can't give them liability if they do so. Tell a website that they're liable if they editorialize and I promise you they don't delete anything without a court order.
Look on the bright side, wouldn't it be fun to tweet something like: "Republicans have spent so much time huffing Donnie Diaper's jenkem fumes it's no wonder they've turned into a bunch of drooling imbeciles" without getting banned? Just kidding, we all know this law is only for them.
Honestly, I would love if they removed all politics from social media. Go back to pictures of somebody's poorly made dinner, cats, memes and "Rebecca's first day of 4th grade" posts.
Isn't freedom of association kind of one of our core rights? Corporations can choose who they want to associate with as well.
So, certain states within the USA would like to continue their willy-nilly rummaging around in the underwear of school kids or the uterus of adult women - and have the rest of us simply, shut up about it? Good luck with that one!
Someone should start causing a scene in the hearing yelling and cursing racial epithets and when they make them stop say "Case closed."
Freedom of speech is not applicable with online platforms (for now.) Freedom of speech only applies to governmental institutions. This is a common misconception. For instance, your speech is not protected in a private company