02-27-2024, 08:04 PM
This post was last modified 02-27-2024, 08:19 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: spelling
This is going be hard to piece together... The issue how educating via the media is used to bias the public at worst, or engendering ignorance at best.
Here is a list of partial links relating to this thread .... (I know you might think you need to 'click' them all... but you might not have to... it's OK either way.)
Who makes laws? The legislation of our administration. Ostensibly, the laws are crafted by the collective will of those represented there; namely, the citizens of the nation. Not "some" citizens, not some "influential" lobbies, not some "special interests." But the common folk of the country in which those laws will be enacted.
Here's the contention statements each article provides:
It seems easy to see that these authors are not all talking about the same thing. The key words here change throughout.
"Social Media Platforms," "political views," "throttling," "free speech," "restrictions" on "moderation", "editorial judgments," "allowing" messages, "common carriers," "choose to place in "front," "control content," "Republican," "power of social media companies," "curb content," "platforms deem objectionable."
I offer a descriptive scenario here for future reference:
You are angry...
very angry...
You pick up a phone and call someone to express your anger...
in the process of venting your anger you utter some angry words
"... do that again, and I'll kill you! So, don't ever do that again..."
but the person on the other side of the call only hears ...
"... do that again, and .... you! So, don't ever do that again..."
Your speech has been censored.
That kills "free speech."
Or,
the person on the other side gets your call... but they are treated to some evident voiceover that simply says, "He or she is angry," but they never hear your actual words...
That kills "free speech."
Or,
You physically cannot execute your desired sentiment, because "it is deemed" objectionable and you are not party to the silencing... in other words, you may not speak.
That kills "free speech."
Thats what it would be like for a "common carrier" to "throttle" your speech, (as it is to have your utterances "edited" out by another party.)
But if the speaker had enacted an agreement between themselves as one party and the carrier as another... you may have just destroyed the complaint. By definition that relationship denotes equal commitment to a contract... making the social media platform a "contract carrier..." wherein each party can terminate the relationship at will, and the "carrier" itself can pick and choose who it serves, and in whatever manner they see fit.
A common carrier is different than a contract carrier in that specific principle... many people including some authors posture that social media are "common" carriers... bastions of "free speech" but they are not. They are commercial enterprises... they can limit their "tolerances" as they choose.
The enterprises in question "want" to posture and "virtue signal" based upon one of the most "virtue signaling" phrases in mainstream-speak... "free speech," while simultaneously invoking their own "free speech" to nullify someone else's. They want to enjoy the veneer of 'noble institution' while not having to embody the very thing that ennobles it.
Now of course, our major media is fully embedded in stoking hyper-partisan narratives, so it is expected that references to "politics" and "Republicans" and "Political viewpoints" will be peppered through their reporting. But clearly, "free speech" is NOT a political issue... it is a human rights issue. It either exists for every person, at any time, under any circumstances, or it doesn't exist at all.
I think the media trying to make this into a political issue is misdirecting the core matter which even they should respect and protect.
However, the "act" of "allowing messages," "placing in 'front'," "editorial judgments," "controlling or curbing content," and "Deeming objectionable" are MOST prone to being political issues, as many (if not most) times these decisions are based upon external bias. Also, the systematized/programmed nature of the digital environment allows for "algorithmic" execution in support of these "actions."
Alot of this conflagration comes from the most fundamental identity issue of our time... are 'platforms', 'companies', 'corporations', and other collective organizations claiming the rights of any single human being for their own "advantage?" Is it right for me to invite the world to come to my "virtual space" to "speak freely" - but then "decide" what I will allow them to say? Perhaps they are free to do so as contract carriers ... but not as common carriers, I think.
Are these commercial interests "people?" Our established laws seem to imply "yes," despite the noteworthy differences between people and companies... e.g. can you send a company to jail, are companies not immortal? Are these "irrelevancies" in the equation? I find it difficult to accept that corporations and such are "people" and often am inclined to refuse the privilege of rights to social/financial "constructs."
Platforms, drop the virtue signaling, I would suggest.
However, this impending "decision" by the court is only "informed" by the mega-money of the social media platform cabals and their government supporters. The Supreme Court might pretend that this matter is all about social media platforms, but I think it isn't. Those mega platforms could rue the day they pursued this "big business" strategy with this issue. But not being a lawyer means I may not know the backchannel ways they might persuade the judges...
We already know that this entire matter began when people finally appeared to have "had enough" of the social engineering attempts, and people started actually seeing the damage that was brought about by the manner in which social media platforms "expressed their free speech" (by disrupting anyone else's.)
Texas and Florida legislation responded to the need to put a damper on that practice, while the social media platforms sang songs of "free speech."
NBC seems to think of the Florida and Texas laws as "restrictions" on social media "restrictions" of member speech. It seems they called it in favor of the social media platforms (big surprise.) Poor devils... their speech is being restricted...
The NY Times, of course segues into the uprising of "hate speech" and ugliness in general... another for social media platforms...
CNN evokes the "public square" meme... akin to "free speech" in its virtue signaling intent. It parks parallel to the misapprehension that social media platforms are "common" carriers "in spirit" only, since they are not "the government," they can do as they wish. Seems to lean in the direction of rejecting whatever the heck Texans and Floridians were complaining about.
Supreme Court Blog author did a good job on this, if I were to recommend one reading among the above listed links... it would be this piece. The author appears to be concerned with facts and processes... not outcomes. From this analysis and reporting it clarifies two things which I would like to reiterate...
One - The social media platforms "postured" themselves as the victims of "state-sponsored" silencing; "Our free speech is in peril!" they proclaim. The laws that these two states established make social media platforms responsible to "provide explanations" of their action to those upon whom those actions were taken. They would have to explain to each and every instance "why" it was done. Needless to say, they won't have that. (And the conspiracy theorist in me thinks the cadre of supporters in government wouldn't want that either... 'things that make you say, "hmmm.")
Two - the Supreme Court must be deftly delicate when confronting this issue of "who has more of a right?"
The best defense is that social media platforms are not "public squares" at all, they are not "common" carriers.
"Profit" derived from spoken utterances cannot confer "rights or privileges" to someone (or some "platform") who is only 'relaying" them.
They can impose whatever actions they wish once the member 'agreed' to the terms of their "user agreements."
Alternately, to paraphrase one author... The social media platforms "want to have their cake and eat it too." In the vein of Justice Alito's comment: "It's your message when you want to escape state regulation. But it's not your message when you want to escape liability."
I don't think this is going as well as the social media platforms want to project via the media alliance... the truth is this issue may burn them one way or another.
Well, I've taxed you enough. I hope you found this and the accompanying sources illuminating. Thanks for your patience.
MM
Here is a list of partial links relating to this thread .... (I know you might think you need to 'click' them all... but you might not have to... it's OK either way.)
- Supreme Court Questions Florida And Texas Social Media Laws - Geek News Central (sourcing CNN, NBC, and NY Times reporting)
- Supreme Court justices express free speech concerns about GOP-backed social media laws - NBC reporting
- Supreme Court Seems Wary of State Laws Regulating Social Media Platforms- NY Times (requires surrender of your email address to read)
- Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s arguments on Texas and Florida’s social media laws and the First Amendment - CNN report
- Supreme Court skeptical of Texas, Florida regulation of social media moderation - A SCOTUS Blog
- Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of Texas and Florida social media laws - National Public Radio (NPR)
- US Supreme Court torn over Florida, Texas laws regulating social media companies - REUTERS news service
Who makes laws? The legislation of our administration. Ostensibly, the laws are crafted by the collective will of those represented there; namely, the citizens of the nation. Not "some" citizens, not some "influential" lobbies, not some "special interests." But the common folk of the country in which those laws will be enacted.
Here's the contention statements each article provides:
- GNC: "...prohibit social media platforms from throttling certain political viewpoints, CNN reported...
- NBC: "... grappled with knotty free speech questions as it weighed laws in Florida and Texas that seek to impose restrictions on the ability of social media companies to moderate content."
- NYT: "The Supreme Court seemed skeptical on Monday of laws in Florida and Texas that bar major social media companies from making editorial judgments about which messages to allow."
- CNN: "...whether social media platforms should be treated like “common carriers,” such as telephone companies, that are required to transmit content across their networks regardless of viewpoint or whether they act more like newspaper publishers that can choose which articles to place on the front page."
- SCOTUS Blog: "... skeptical of a pair of laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies control content posted on their sites."
- NPR: "... whether states like Florida and Texas can force big social media platforms to carry content the platforms find hateful or objectionable."
- REUTERS: "...reservations about Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas meant to restrict the power of social media companies to curb content that the platforms deem objectionable..."
It seems easy to see that these authors are not all talking about the same thing. The key words here change throughout.
"Social Media Platforms," "political views," "throttling," "free speech," "restrictions" on "moderation", "editorial judgments," "allowing" messages, "common carriers," "choose to place in "front," "control content," "Republican," "power of social media companies," "curb content," "platforms deem objectionable."
I offer a descriptive scenario here for future reference:
You are angry...
very angry...
You pick up a phone and call someone to express your anger...
in the process of venting your anger you utter some angry words
"... do that again, and I'll kill you! So, don't ever do that again..."
but the person on the other side of the call only hears ...
"... do that again, and .... you! So, don't ever do that again..."
Your speech has been censored.
That kills "free speech."
Or,
the person on the other side gets your call... but they are treated to some evident voiceover that simply says, "He or she is angry," but they never hear your actual words...
That kills "free speech."
Or,
You physically cannot execute your desired sentiment, because "it is deemed" objectionable and you are not party to the silencing... in other words, you may not speak.
That kills "free speech."
Thats what it would be like for a "common carrier" to "throttle" your speech, (as it is to have your utterances "edited" out by another party.)
But if the speaker had enacted an agreement between themselves as one party and the carrier as another... you may have just destroyed the complaint. By definition that relationship denotes equal commitment to a contract... making the social media platform a "contract carrier..." wherein each party can terminate the relationship at will, and the "carrier" itself can pick and choose who it serves, and in whatever manner they see fit.
A common carrier is different than a contract carrier in that specific principle... many people including some authors posture that social media are "common" carriers... bastions of "free speech" but they are not. They are commercial enterprises... they can limit their "tolerances" as they choose.
The enterprises in question "want" to posture and "virtue signal" based upon one of the most "virtue signaling" phrases in mainstream-speak... "free speech," while simultaneously invoking their own "free speech" to nullify someone else's. They want to enjoy the veneer of 'noble institution' while not having to embody the very thing that ennobles it.
Now of course, our major media is fully embedded in stoking hyper-partisan narratives, so it is expected that references to "politics" and "Republicans" and "Political viewpoints" will be peppered through their reporting. But clearly, "free speech" is NOT a political issue... it is a human rights issue. It either exists for every person, at any time, under any circumstances, or it doesn't exist at all.
I think the media trying to make this into a political issue is misdirecting the core matter which even they should respect and protect.
However, the "act" of "allowing messages," "placing in 'front'," "editorial judgments," "controlling or curbing content," and "Deeming objectionable" are MOST prone to being political issues, as many (if not most) times these decisions are based upon external bias. Also, the systematized/programmed nature of the digital environment allows for "algorithmic" execution in support of these "actions."
Alot of this conflagration comes from the most fundamental identity issue of our time... are 'platforms', 'companies', 'corporations', and other collective organizations claiming the rights of any single human being for their own "advantage?" Is it right for me to invite the world to come to my "virtual space" to "speak freely" - but then "decide" what I will allow them to say? Perhaps they are free to do so as contract carriers ... but not as common carriers, I think.
Are these commercial interests "people?" Our established laws seem to imply "yes," despite the noteworthy differences between people and companies... e.g. can you send a company to jail, are companies not immortal? Are these "irrelevancies" in the equation? I find it difficult to accept that corporations and such are "people" and often am inclined to refuse the privilege of rights to social/financial "constructs."
Platforms, drop the virtue signaling, I would suggest.
However, this impending "decision" by the court is only "informed" by the mega-money of the social media platform cabals and their government supporters. The Supreme Court might pretend that this matter is all about social media platforms, but I think it isn't. Those mega platforms could rue the day they pursued this "big business" strategy with this issue. But not being a lawyer means I may not know the backchannel ways they might persuade the judges...
We already know that this entire matter began when people finally appeared to have "had enough" of the social engineering attempts, and people started actually seeing the damage that was brought about by the manner in which social media platforms "expressed their free speech" (by disrupting anyone else's.)
Texas and Florida legislation responded to the need to put a damper on that practice, while the social media platforms sang songs of "free speech."
NBC seems to think of the Florida and Texas laws as "restrictions" on social media "restrictions" of member speech. It seems they called it in favor of the social media platforms (big surprise.) Poor devils... their speech is being restricted...
The NY Times, of course segues into the uprising of "hate speech" and ugliness in general... another for social media platforms...
CNN evokes the "public square" meme... akin to "free speech" in its virtue signaling intent. It parks parallel to the misapprehension that social media platforms are "common" carriers "in spirit" only, since they are not "the government," they can do as they wish. Seems to lean in the direction of rejecting whatever the heck Texans and Floridians were complaining about.
Supreme Court Blog author did a good job on this, if I were to recommend one reading among the above listed links... it would be this piece. The author appears to be concerned with facts and processes... not outcomes. From this analysis and reporting it clarifies two things which I would like to reiterate...
One - The social media platforms "postured" themselves as the victims of "state-sponsored" silencing; "Our free speech is in peril!" they proclaim. The laws that these two states established make social media platforms responsible to "provide explanations" of their action to those upon whom those actions were taken. They would have to explain to each and every instance "why" it was done. Needless to say, they won't have that. (And the conspiracy theorist in me thinks the cadre of supporters in government wouldn't want that either... 'things that make you say, "hmmm.")
Two - the Supreme Court must be deftly delicate when confronting this issue of "who has more of a right?"
The best defense is that social media platforms are not "public squares" at all, they are not "common" carriers.
"Profit" derived from spoken utterances cannot confer "rights or privileges" to someone (or some "platform") who is only 'relaying" them.
They can impose whatever actions they wish once the member 'agreed' to the terms of their "user agreements."
Alternately, to paraphrase one author... The social media platforms "want to have their cake and eat it too." In the vein of Justice Alito's comment: "It's your message when you want to escape state regulation. But it's not your message when you want to escape liability."
I don't think this is going as well as the social media platforms want to project via the media alliance... the truth is this issue may burn them one way or another.
Well, I've taxed you enough. I hope you found this and the accompanying sources illuminating. Thanks for your patience.
MM
