Subreddit Gets Users To Call Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a 'Little Piss Baby' To Defy Content Moderation Law
Reddit users are protesting Texas' H.B. 20, which forces social media platforms to host speech they find objectionable.

As of this week, the subreddit r/PoliticalHumor is requiring that all posts include the phrase "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby" or else users will be banned from the forum, per reporting by TechDirt. Moderators have made explicit that they will be discriminating against all users posting viewpoints that go against the piss-baby line in protest of Texas' new content moderation law, H.B. 20, which forces social media platforms to host speech they find objectionable.
That law, which Reason's Scott Shackford has reported on in the past, was recently upheld by a panel of Fifth Circuit judges, "in what certainly appears to be a complete violation and abandonment of First Amendment protections for private companies," writes Shackford.
H.B. 20, which was first signed into law by Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in 2021, disallows U.S.-based platforms with over 50 million monthly users from banning users over their beliefs. Originally drafted by Republican lawmakers alleging viewpoint discrimination against conservatives, the bill has percolated through the courts. One federal judge summed it up well as he blocked the law from taking effect back in December of last year: "This Court is convinced that social media platforms, or at least those covered by [House Bill] 20, curate both users and content to convey a message about the type of community the platform seeks to foster and, as such, exercise editorial discretion over their platform's content."
Other judges have disagreed—most recently the panel of Fifth Circuit judges who upheld the law, claiming that the social media platforms challenging the bill "offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every person's right to 'the freedom of speech.' But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person's enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation's unenumerated right to muzzle speech." (Emphasis theirs.)
Now, people are hilariously testing how far Texas will go in winnowing away at companies' abilities to decide which content they host. Reddit makes a particularly interesting case study due to the unique nature of the site's content moderation practices. The subreddit's moderators explain:
"Reddit falls into a weird category with this law. The actual employees of the company Reddit do, maybe, one percent of the moderation on the site. The rest is handled by
disgusting janniesvolunteer moderators, who Reddit has made quite clear over the years, aren't agents of Reddit (mainly so they don't lose millions of dollars every time a mod approves something vaguely related to Disney and violates their copyright). It's unclear whether we count as users or moderators in relation to this law, and none of us live in Texas anyway."
Courts elsewhere have "rightly recognized that the government has no legal authority to interfere with the way a private company decides to curate content that it presents to its customers, especially when their interference is politically motivated," explained Spence Purnell over at the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit which publishes this website) back in 2021.
Laws that attempt to treat social media companies as "common carriers" (like utility providers or telecommunication companies) are bad not just from a compelled-speech perspective but also because the "common carrier" definition probably should not apply to social media providers for a whole host of reasons (The Cato Institute's Matthew Feeney touches on that more here).
If pointing out the absurdity of such laws requires somewhat juvenile (but possibly truth-telling) Reddit stunts, so be it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
>>or else users will be banned from the forum
lol arrogant douchebags are the worst kind.
Forced speech is the best speech.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [asn-03] I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
I can think of nothing more pathetic than being a janny for reddit. Muh updoots, muh karma, muh banned gamer words.
Every interest or hobby has a faction that sees policing everyone else as a way to feel some control and power in their otherwise pathetic lives. Reddit is nothing but a haven and vehicle for such people. Go to any Reddit forum on any subject and it will be filled with smug douche bags trying to lecture and police everyone else about what is and s not "real" gaming or sim racing or whatever. I honestly don't understand how anyone who isn't a douche bag uses Reddit for anything other than trading free porn.
All this is true. It's the iron law of internet communities.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (emu-050) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Every internet site not explicitly anti woke-nazi will inevitably evolve to eventually drive out everyone who is not a woke-nazi. It's a law as universal as those of physics.
You could pretty much say the same about Twitter. Or pretty much any other social media platform.
I've found that 85% of the time, trying to find good information from online communities of self-proclaimed experts means one needs to triple check the information or risk destroying whatever one is working on. It's probably a post-industrial society thing, but folks just give their opinions, answer questions and are frequently dead fucking wrong. Not unlike a lot of the left-leaning folks here...
I made the mistake of trying to explain the difference between a battery charger and a battery tender one time on a motorcycle forum and ended it deluged by ignorance.
Did you know that an alternator doesn’t really charge your battery but merely “tops it up “. I guess batteries know the difference between an electrical field generated by an alternator and one generated by a plug in at your house or something.
Yeah, these sorts of forums are havens for bad information
pretty much every thread on reason would get you banned from reddit.
I was banned from a Covid subreddit on reddit, just for reading another Covid subreddit. Because apparently just reading a different POV was subject to internal censorship.
"
Your majestyGovernor, you look like the Piss Boy!""And you look like a bucket of shit!"
These people don't seem to understand how free speech works. Beyond that, when it comes to the subject of Section 230 immunity, the defense always was that social media companies were not publishers and therefore were entitled to immunity for content on their platforms that would not normally be accorded to publishers.
people
Okay, but when the State of Texas declares them common carriers, now suddenly they are publishers and saying they can't discriminate against viewpoints is "forced speech". It is one of the most blatant cases of heads I win tails you lose logic I have ever seen.
I guess it is too much to ask for Reason and the rest of the people on the big tech payroll and their various useful idiots take a consistent position and live with the consequences rather than just "if the tech company wants it, they get it."
"It is one of the most blatant cases of heads I win tails you lose logic I have ever seen."
This kind of logic works VERY WELL for Marxists everywhere, who want to decide for you, what you should, and should not, be allowed to do with YOUR property!!! ("Either you are a good person, or you disobey MEEEEE!!!!")
Seriously, you need to be in treatment if you are not already. Your posts are to anyone who has had even a college level abnormal psychology class terrifying.
Seriously, EVIL power pig liar, HOW MANY TIMES will you repeat your lies?
Either you agree with MEEEE, or you are mentally ill!!!
All of the GOOD totalitarians KNOW that those who oppose totalitarianism are mentally ill, yes!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=During%20the%20leadership%20of%20General,that%20contradicted%20the%20official%20dogma.
Just because the Soviets misused psychiatry doesn't mean there are not actual crazy people and you are not one of them. Normally, ridicule and laughter is the best way to deal with someone as irrational and evil as you are. Honestly, however, I don't have the heart to make fun of you. You are not just a sick fuck like Palin's Butt Plug. You are not just a dishonest partisan idiot like ChemJeff or Mike Larson. You are just deranged. I can't bring myself to make fun of you like I do them because they are annoying. You are just sad and possibly dangerous.
Get off your ass and send that email plus writing sample!!! You are wasting UTTERLY precious persuasive talents here!!!
Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!
So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…
Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:
Hi Fantastically Talented Author:
Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.
At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
Thank You! -Reason Staff
Sqrlsy lost. He just posted his white flag.
Remember folks, the spamflag can be used as a 'hide post' feature, so you don't have to continuously scroll past this troll's copypasta. Reason doesn't actually remove spam and you won't get in trouble using it that way.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
See?
I’m usually against this sort of thing, but SQRLSY should be dragged off the street by force , taken to an insane asylum (the kind from the 1800’s) and given a forced lobotomy. Then thrown into a padded cell after being shot up with as much Thorazine as a creature like him can take.
The reasoning of section 230 was that the platform did not own the users speech. Therefore they were not liable for speech that was not blatantly promoting illegality or similar. For this law to be against a platform's free speech rights, the platform has to claim that all user speech is the platform's responsibility. The two claims are incompatible. Either the platform owns the user's speech or it does not.
So it is good and true and just for a newspaper to be punished for what a letter-to-the-editor-writer wrote? Why NOT a "Section 230 for hardcopy rags"? Would YOU like to be punished for what I wrote?
Sooo… Your “fix” to all of this is to punish “publishers” (web sites) for the content generated by OTHER people? Those who post?
SOME people here have argued that, since there has been at least one (several?) case(s) of hardcopy rags (newspapers) sued FOR THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS, namely letter-to-the-editor writers (it was all well and good to authoritarians that SOME people got punished for the writings of OTHER people), then the proper fix MUST be to perpetrate / perpetuate this obvious injustice right on over to the internet domain!
This is like arguing that the “fix” for a cop strangling to death, a black man (Eric Garner) on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies” is, not to STOP the injustice, but rather, to go and find some White and Hispanic and Asian men as well, and strangle them, as well, on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies”! THAT will make it all “fair”!
NY Times (NYT) can be punished for what someone ELSE wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in their hardcopy rag! An injustice, to be “fixed” by punishing Facebook for the same kind of offenses! Hey: Tear down Section 230 to “fix” this? Or REALLY fix it by adding a “Section 230 for hardcopy rags”?
In 1850, I imagine that perhaps some people in the USA were saying it isn’t fair that white folks hold black folks as slaves. Let’s “fix” it by having a bunch of black folks hold white slaves, too!
What kind of EVIL person fixes injustice by widening the spread of more injustice of the same kind? HOW does this “fix” ANYTHING?!?!
Remember folks, the spamflag can be used as a ‘hide post’ feature, so you don’t have to continuously scroll past this troll’s copypasta. Reason doesn’t actually remove spam and you won’t get in trouble using it that way.
Newspapers do not publish every letter to the editor they receive. They are not a bulletin board or a public space. To that extent they are liable for their letters section as they do receive any liability protections.
"To that extent they are liable for their letters section ..."
Which is a gross injustice! Feeding frenzy for lawyers, who seek the deepest pockets that they can find!!!
If Der BidenFuhrer writes a letter to the editor of some tiny little 50-copies-per-week dirt-poor hardcopy news-rag, and Der BidenFuhrer
says ALL sorts of TOTAL blatant lies about Mickey Rat in said news rag... You want to sue the NEWS RAG, or Der BidenFuhrer? Really and truly now? Or... Does it all depend on whose ox is gored, and who has the deepest pockets?
Neither do social media sites.
And starting in 1835 Southern postmasters refused delivery of abolitionist literature.
Southern postmasters were performing a public function, paid for by taxation. FacePooo is NOT! HUGE difference there!!!
It’s pretty sad that your hatred of anything to the right of Obama has cratered out your brain to the point you ignore the huge sums of money the CIA (government guns) poured into Social Media. You used to be anti-Big government, now you suck it off more than Tony sucks off sailors during Fleet Week.
The reasoning of section 230 was that the platform did not own the users speech.
This was the retcon. Not the reasoning. It's plain from the title to the motivating discussions, case history, and on down, the intent of the law was to make platform providers responsible for blocking and screening of offensive materials. Briggs' depiction is correct, they dodged the obvious depiction of censoring speech by offering carrots to others to beat people down rather than beating them with a stick themselves.
No they were responsible for blocking illegal materials like criminal conduct and copyright violations. It wasn’t about offensive material whatever that is
Nope. There’s the issue that editorial control of user-provided content is supposed to be a free speech right, too, not subject to government fiat.
How the fuck can anyone on a libertarian website argue in favor of the government forcing companies to host neo-Nazi rants on their own property?
Well, may I suggest that... They are conservaturd, fascist assholes, and NOT real libertarians? That's what comes first and foremost to my mind...
Most everyone here are saying that if you kick the Neo-Nazis off for “hate speech” but don’t kick the Jihadi Extremist off for their “hate speech you are, by any sane persons understanding, no longer just hosting people’s speech but publishing (and therefore endorsing) one person’s hate speech over another’s
Sorry you and Captain Underpants here refuse to understand nuance or the positions that people are actually taking. Maybe try not being retarded partisan shills about this?
For clarity, DesigNate and other fascist assholes take the following stance:
"It is theoretically possible for YOU to chose a web site (of your own free will), where the web site has ALREADY WEEDED OUT, ahead of time, empty-headed posters (like R Mac) and ID-thieves (like Mother's Lament), and commercial spammers, and utter brain-dead NAZIs (like Rob Misek), ON YOUR BEHALF, but WE, as your Moral Superiors, FORBID you that choice!"
THAT is the plain and simple truth!!!
Remember folks, the spamflag can be used as a ‘hide post’ feature, so you don’t have to continuously scroll past this troll’s copypasta. Reason doesn’t actually remove spam and you won’t get in trouble using it that way.
Mute user works far better for getting rid of trolls' posts, and if you keep repeating this message over and over after every post by him, it's going to be applied to you.
Soon all that will be seen is gray boxes.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Twitter is a private entity and can endorse whatever the fuck it wants to endorse.
Yes they can.
And then they can be held liable for endorsing whatever the fuck they like.
Oh wait, no they can’t because they got special crony protections.
Same as for other common carriers like phone companies.
So WHEN did the phone company last say to me... "You're NOT allowed to SAY that to your Aunt Mildred, on the phone, because the public might confuse what YOU say, with the public stance of the phone company"? Reason.com MIGHT plausibly want to say such things, though!!! HUGE difference!!! PUBLICALLY VIEWABLE CRAP, HELLO, DUH?!?!?
1-1 communications and 1-to-anybody interested are a bit different, aren't they?
This strikes me as a recapitulation of the state AGs forcing ISPs to drop USENET access from basic service.
Because the government working with corporations to monitor speech is worse you retarded fuck.
It's hard to see the legal argument for how declaring themselves to be making editorial decisions as a publisher wouldn't mean they've opted out of eligibility for protection under Section 230.
There doesn't seem to be a need for the push to repeal Section 230 like the GOP is engaged in; leave it to the companies individually to choose whether they want to be protected under that law, or if they want to be publishing a particularly "curated community". Just make it clear that there's no option to do both.
Why? 230 doesn’t forbid editorial control.
The intent of 230 is to protect platforms which choose not to exert that control from being held liable for activity they can't control and aren't actively engaged in. The entire purpose of the section is to prevent platforms who choose to provide a "town square" from being forced into the role of "publisher" or "curator" by threats of litigation.
Once the operators of a platform decide that they're going to instead provide a "curated" community in which content is controlled by top-down editorial choices, it's no longer appropriate or useful to protect the organization dictating those choices from liability for the content they're choosing to publish.
Reason didn't do a very good job covering the 5th circuit's ruling. Part of the problem lays with are they a common carrier. Another is are they editing. The court cases cited dealt with newspapers and their ability to edit. The lawyers for the tech companies argued that they have the right to edit, but the companies maintain publicly they are not editors. They are trying to have it both ways. If they are moderating as editors then the 5th circuit ruling is contrary to previous court cases. If, however, they are, as per their public assertions, not editing, and social media has risen to the level of common carrier then the 5th circuit ruling is the correct ruling per juris prudence. Shackleford completely ignored this in his writing, are we surprised?
They claim not to be editors because if they are then that raises the question why they should get Section 230 immunity. If they edit and control content, then there is no reason to treat them any differently than any other publisher and thus no reason for Section 230. If they don't edit and just put up whatever the users create, then there is no argument against them being a common carrier. It is one or the other but the tech companies want both. So, they lie and claim one thing while actually doing another.
"They are trying to have it both ways."
Same is true of pet-owning, SUPPOSEDLY "animal-loving" meat eaters!!! We MUST punish ALL of the disobedient ones, who try to have it both ways!!! Because I said so!!!
"Publisher. Platform. Pick one." ... 'Cause Power Pig said so!
Your large and ugly punishment boner is showing!!! Be decent, and COVER UP, will ya?!?!?
If you want to love animals, pamper your pets. If you love to eat meat, eat meat. Pick one, ONLY one!
You either love animals, or you eat meat… You can NOT do both! All pet owners who eat meat? Their pets will be slaughtered and their pet-meat distributed to the poor! Because I and 51% of the voters said so! And because we are power pigs, and LOOOOOVE to punish people!
"Publisher. Platform. Pick one. When you exercise editorial control, you are a publisher."
I’ve heard this utter balderdash from an endless army of marching morons! Using the VERY simple principle of “speech is speech is also writing or any other method of idea conveyance”, then WHAT is “editorial control”? It is simply, picking and choosing what to repeat or report, and what to ignore!
Examples:
Der TrumpfenFuhrer goes on and on and ON AND ON for 2 hours, telling us all just HOW wonderful he is. In the middle of all this boredom, He says, “And voters should only be allow to vote “R”, and NOT for “D” or “L”, ‘cause ALL “D” and “L” votes are fraudulent!” … Now if the media reports ONLY the juicy excerpt from Der TrumpfenFuhrer’s endless blathering, they are clearly “editing”… So we can SUE them (the media) for quoting Der TrumpfenFuhrer said, right, right-wing wrong-nuts? Media LIED to us by omitting context!!!
Der BidenFuhrer goes on and on and ON AND ON for 5 hours, telling us all just HOW wonderful Hunter Biden’s artwork is. In the middle of all this boredom, He says, “And income taxes need to be set to 98% for EVERYONE!” … Now if the media reports ONLY the juicy excerpt from Der BidenFuhrer’s endless blathering, they are clearly “editing”… So we can SUE them (the media) for quoting (“out of context, edited”) what Der BidenFuhrer said, right, left-wing wrong-nuts?
Partisan POWER PIG bullshit all the way down!
This post is a perfect example of why real insanity can never be fully understood yet also can never be adequately faked. It almost makes sense and has a logical flow to it but still manages to be completely insane. Only an actual lunatic could write something like this. A sane person couldn't do it. They would either write something totally incomprehensible trying to be crazy or write something sane.
Either you agree with MEEEE, or you are mentally ill!!!
All of the GOOD totalitarians KNOW that those who oppose totalitarianism are mentally ill, yes!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=During%20the%20leadership%20of%20General,that%20contradicted%20the%20official%20dogma.
You are insane. Having delusions of persecution is one of the hallmarks of being so.
Quick! Call him a pedophile! It is your old standbye thread winner!
We know you are.
Have you noticed no one does that to anyone except you?
Maybe because you're actually a pedophile, but that's just a wild ass guess.
Is Sqrlsy a pedophile? We know you are Shrike because you posted it here.
So, you are finally embracing who you are. Well done.
Poor pedophiles are being harassed.
Actually your the only one we call a pedofile... Because you posted child porn
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate. https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836 Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
#FillingInForOvert
Remember to spamflag Sqrlsy for improved readability, folks.
Shackford writes something like this, and then complains when something he has written is deplatformed for violating something verboten (like showing a clip of Trump speaking) and whining because he engages in journalism, not the shitposting the peons engage in.
I don't think any of this is relevant.
A publisher doesn't have to publish anything it doesn't want to, right? Check. A common carrier is liable for the stuff it carries. Check.
Let's say by 230, the internet contains common carriers exempt from liability, at best.
Nowhere in here does the First Amendment stop applying.
Common carriers ARE NOT responsible for the content they carry.
So you want to declare Reason.com to be a "common carrier"? And if Reason is then inundated with racist bullshit comments that they can NOT be allowed to take down? And Reason then gets boycotted because of it? Are YOU a fascist just like Damiksec then?
Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?
Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!
So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!
“Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)
(Etc.)
See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/
As THE Omnipotent and Omniscient Uber-Being of ALL Dimensions and Inter-Dimensions Everywhere, I Hereby Declare that ALL THINGS EVERYWHERE are ALL "common carriers", and so, ALL must uber-obey MEEEEE!!!! Ass concerns ALL things!!!
(I shall SEVERELY spank every and all disobedient, arrogant ones with My Ultimate Weapon, the Inter-dimensional Vorbulator!!!)
It's been a while since I was last here. Did you used to post as Mike Hihn?
No, but I do miss and envy Agile Cyborg, who generated wild and wacky bizarre stuff better than I can whip out!!!
Needz moar bold.
Sqrlsy definitely has the Hihn flavor, but Hihn made sense at the beginning of discussions, and his copy & paste walls were at least related to the topic. Sqrsly almost never makes sense from the beginning, and his walls of text rarely have any bearing on what is being discussed.
I've long since given up trying to read squirrelly's comments. Too long, too many caps, too many !!!, and too many, period.
Usually one toilet's worth is all it takes to stunk up a room. No need for the whole septic tank.
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. If you guys are reporting on what Reddit is up to, I guess we can expect the latest thread on 4chan's /pol/ to be the next article we'll get.
Every Reddit thread degenerates into a pissing match over who is a "real" devote of whatever the subject of the thread is. Nothing is ever learned and nothing ever changes. It is just one long shouting match over who is a real true Scotsman and who isn't. It is pathetic.
It is just one long shouting match over who is a real true Scotsman and who isn’t. It is pathetic.
Kind of like a Libertarian Party convention.
Fewer accusations of fascism/white nationalism on reddit, but I stick to the technical pages.
The LP does have the "big tent" vs "purist" variation.
Unironically, Fox's Gutfeld show displayed a 4chan post regarding that Canadian tranny shop teacher with the super sized prosthetic tits. I wonder if (((Gutfeld))) is a secret /pol/ack.
Gutfeld? That little sawed-off piece of shit? The best part of him ran down the crack of Hannity's ass after Donnie dismounted.
Ah, your intellectualism just spews forth from your post.
No surprise Gutfeld enrages Shrike. But he swears he's not a Democratic party shill, folks.
SPB2 fantasizes about gay sex between his enemies, but remember everyone: we're the crazy ones.
At least this fantasy involves people of legal age. That's not the norm for this pers...um, thing.
I saw that. It was very similar to a post here from the same day wondering if this teacher might be trolling. Not sure who the poster here was.
Subreddit Gets Users To Call Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a 'Little Piss Baby' To Defy Content Moderation Law
When the Democrats/media try to make their own “Let’s Go Brandon!”.
Haters like these Reddit guys want to discriminate against people and are butthurt they might not always be able to.
H.B. 20, which was first signed into law by Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in 2021, disallows U.S.-based platforms with over 50 million monthly users from banning users over their beliefs.
Why does Governor Gimp hate free enterprise?
Why do you want to fuck little boys up the ass? Why do you think wanting that doesn't make you gay?
They mind of the typical hicklib pederast will forever remain a mystery. That is most certainly for the best.
That's it! Don't you feel better now?
You got to unload some of your latent toe-tapping men's room and city park fantasies and act all internet tough guy in one post.
Well done!
By attacking you personally, they don't have to engage what you actually say. It's genius.
I can play that game too. That's why they hate me.
In their defense they are used to attacking Democrats who can't fight back.
I'm just an independent white guy that hates both parties.
I’m just an independent white guy that hates both parties.
You do realize that most of the people writing comments on this site truly believe that what you said is impossible, right?
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that shriek posted links to child porn.
Because he is a liar.
So is Sarc. He doesn't actually believe Shrike either, but he wants a friend.
I'm just waiting until he starts stanning for Misek.
"He doesn’t actually believe Shrike either, but he wants a friend."
If you can look over what SPB2 posted just in this one article, ignoring anything else he has posted in the past, and you still want to try and be friendly with him, you might have a problem.
Sure you are.
"I’m just an independent"
Hahaha, what the fuck, lol.
Yeah, we all just fell off the turnip truck, Shrike.
Should I post shrikes comment about being an OSF donor here?
Only sarc is dumb enough to "believe " him because sarc believes he is an independent too.
Sarc is back to defending the pedo despite the pedos past.
You’ve been here long enough to know that it’s no use engaging shrike on anything he says.
Objectionable content? Not like you have posted that before. Objectionable and illegal content not covered by Governor Abbott's law. IIRC, it got you kicked off this site.
Free speech is good until is isn't, right SPB2?
Free speech is always good. If you don't like it turn it off.
Among my heroes is the late great freedom-fighter Larry Flynt. Conservatives REALLY hate that guy.
I figured John Wayne Gacy was more your style.
So, you like someone simply because the other political team hates him? Strange.
And I'm not the one complaing about hearing free speech. That's you.
So they think that forcing people to say something makes THEIR point?
But I gotta say, it sure is telling how THEY think it's just fine to make fun of someone's disability when it suits their purposes.
Of course they do. See the resident pederast in the post just before you. They are all disgusting, evil people.
Since when do you object to making fun of a disability?
As a Trump Cultist you know you rubbed one out when Donnie frenetically mocked the reporter with arthrogryposis.
#OWNIN'DE-LIBS!
You're bringing that trope up again? His reference was standard Trump mockery for people without that condition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsaB3ynIZH4
Do you ever think, "when I have to lie about my political opponents in order to own my political opponents, maybe my position is wrong?"
So, stopping the Tech Giants from censoring opinions they don't like is totally unacceptable because it is compelled speech. But, actually compelling speech to attack Republicans is "hilarious".
Yeah, Reason is totally the voice of independent libertarianism and totally isn't completely in the bag for the left.
Why don't you accuse Reason of being in the bag for the right when they make fun of Democrats?
I doubt this will matter to you, but it's a matter of consistency. If Reason were to applaud an effort to portray some Democrat who supported marijuana legalization as a "stoner", then yeah, I'd criticize Reason as a right-wing shill for that. Because that applause would fly in the face of their long-standing position contrary to that. Now, after years of saying that anti-censorship efforts toward social media were wrong because they would compel speech, they're applauding people actually compelling speech. Again, applause flies in the face of their long-standing position. If Reason's position here were that Reddit was a private platform and therefore the compulsion was allowable, if regrettable, I might be able to respect their position. But, Wolfe's specific choice of word was "hilarious". That's not the choice of words when one is opposed to compelled speech, but constrained by libertarian principle. That isn't the choice of words when one is even neutral toward compelled speech. That's the choice of words when compelled speech is just honky-dorey, just as long as it's the right choice of speech.
And right-wingers don't do the EXACT same thing, are you saying?
"Parler censors liberals"... Google it! https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/29/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like/
Where is your whining and crying to PUNISH Parler?!!??
Did Parler hold itself out to be anything other than an online safe space for conservatives? If not, then your point is missing.
Even still, fuck platforms censoring, editing, or deleting posts.
Even still, fuck PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DECIDE what OTHER people should do with THEIR property! To include web sites!!!
I'm impressed you are trying to reason with sarcasmic about his shtick.
I'm impressed that he responded without a bunch of attacks. That's pretty rare around here.
That is true.
Do you support the law that they are making fun of? Just curious. Or are you in a huff because you perceive it as an attack on your team.
Yes. Based on ideals and fifth circuit analysis.
First the companies use vague rules to suppress content they dislike. This despite the content serving no harm to the various companies. The sites generate user content that other users can choose to follow or ignore. The companies rights are not violated in any manner. The fifth circuit went through the 5 court cases based on precedence. The companies have violated the terms of users through arbitrary application of rules, changing rules after comments have been made, and working directly with the government to censor viewpoints the government disagrees with.
Users have been harmed through violations of said contracts. They have built a following on platforms then had terms changed on them, see Berenson.
The only ones who have been harmed are those kicked off platforms who lost user engagements. Often solely for political statements. Despite these companies advertising as free speech companies. The working with government is even worse for the companies.
Your turn. Do you agree with censorship of non harmful speech?
"Do you agree with censorship of non harmful speech?"
All of us (including me) who use the "mute" button on blatant spamming by "make cheap money quickly HERE" posters are... OMG!!! Exercising our rights to... OMG!!!!... DECIDE FOR OURSELVES, who is or is not "harmful" by WASTING OUR PRECIOUS TIME!!!
Will ALL of you fucking power-pig, parasitical ASSHOLE micro-managing dicktatorSHIT-lusters PLEASE just FUCK THE HELL OFF already?!?!?
And before any of you power-pig morons chime in with your VAST doses of stupid... YES, it should be my RIGHT to chose to read a web site, which I have selected to MAKE MY CHOICES AHEAD OF TIME, for, me, on WHICH type of air-headed stupid assholes to WEED OUT of the conversations of intelligent, sincere, and well-informed posters!!!
If you don’t know the fundamental difference between Reason banning you because you’re crazy (while leaving people like Tony or shrike or Misek alone) and individual users muting/spam flagging you, maybe just sit down and shut the fuck up.
For clarity, people like DesigNate want to take away YOUR FREEDOM to chose among many-many web sites that make THEIR own decisions about what to do with THEIR web sites!!! If they want to ban Rob Misek but NOT SQRSLY One... Or vice versa... That (says DesigNate and fellow micro-managing assholes) should NOT be the decisions of web site owners... AND the customers who chose to use said web site, or not... THESE decisions should be made by Government Almighty!!!! 'Cause they HURT My Precious Baby Feelings, and... PREPARE yourselves now... They TOOK DOWN MY POST!!!! WAAAAAA!!!!
(Free choice is free choice, period, whether I exercise it via the "mute button", or ignoring stupid shits, or by NOT reading an ENTIRE WEB SITE, 'cause they do a SHITTY job of moderating!!!)
But as a libertarian, you believe in maximum freedom for private companies to set their own terms, and if you don't like it, you don't have to shop there.
You people have just flat-out abandoned everything you've been preaching at me for years.
I'm glad. Now I can advocate for more rights and more socialized industries and you can't say shit.
No. As a libertarian I believe in maximum liberty for individuals. Any nexus of power can corrupt or harm an individual. In this case it is even those corporations working with government and political actors.
Again. You know nothing about libertarianism.
Don't you find it strange you think maximizing corporate power is the goal?
As a libertarian I believe in maximum liberty for individuals.
lol no you don't
at best, you give lip service to maximum liberty to individuals with whom you can identify, i.e., white conservative American citizens
tell us again how deporting migrants who are LEGALLY seeking asylum is totally okay because "90% of them are lying"
tell us again how everyone showing up to a BLM protest that turns into a riot, is guilty of the same crimes that the rioters themselves are guilty of because they all either participated or enabled it; and then whine some more about how the Jan 6 protestors, even the ones guilty of violent crimes, are "political prisoners" and how their treatment is unjust
you don't want maximum liberty for individuals. you want maximum liberty for YOURSELF and the people with whom you find common cause to do whatever the fuck you all want. your position is not that of liberty, but narcissism.
If you show up to day 5 (or 20 in Portland) of protesting that has become rioting, and/or you give actual cover to rioters/people actively violating the NAP, you don’t get to pretend you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Vs
Literally rounding up people that were let into the Capitol, didn’t destroy anything, and didn’t attack anybody weeks or months after the incident.
I’m pretty sure that’s Jesse’s actual position. I could be wrong though.
Do you support the law that they are making fun of?
Honestly, I'm not completely sure. I think honest people of goodwill can take either side of the issue (as can mendacious pricks). But, the point I'm making is that, if you're holding out certain principles to take a particular side of the issue, it's kind of hard to assume you're one of those honest people of goodwill, and not a mendacious prick, if you abandon those claimed principles just to score points.
It’s all good, man. I’m sure that tomorrow all Reddit posts will be forcibly paired with the phrase “biden is a pants shitting senile old drug warrior”.
Just wait, you’ll see. Haha.
so Bill...
What's YOUR plan? Do you plan to tear down Section 230, and then post some TOTALLY offensive, racist rants, full of many-many LIES... Defamation, libel, etc. ... And then SUE Reason.com for having "published" YOUR writings?
Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching, ALL of the way to the bank, for Bill Dalasio, Baby!!! Pure evil, greedy GENIUS here!!!!
You know, it really is too early for you to be drunk already.
It is NEVER a good time to be stoned out of one's mind, with utter power-lust and self-righteousness!!!
Do you plan to tear down Section 230,
By tearing down Section 230, do you mean remove the communications decency act?
No, I mean removing, replacing, or invalidating S-230 as is written, and THAT would be a HUGE mistake! ANY plausible replacement, in today's political environment, will be WORSE!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
So keep the communications decency act, INCLUDING section 230. Interesting libertarian perspective, I have to admit.
nothing you say makes any sense
So... Punishing one person for the writings of another person makes FAR more sense, to you? What planet did you say that you are from?
You forgot to add "...when that person publishes and amplifies that other person's writings."
It's pretty amazing how she doesn't even consider this. They are objecting to a law that encourages more speech by limiting speech and actually compelling it.
Tbh, as far as I'm concerned the reddit thread is free to do this as part of its rules, but it shows exactly who these people are and that they have absolutely nothing in common with libertarians
REDDIT is essentially a compelled speech platform already. It regularly bans people for even the slightest deviation from the establishment groupthink... I don't even see how this is a protest. It's just Tuesday at Reddit.
Being banned is TOTALLY different than compelled speech!!! All of the local churches (religious establishments generally) forbid me from taking over their podium, and screaming about politics and religion, to their church (etc.) goers, unless I kiss their butts endlessly (and swallow their dogma) for ??? 12 years, and donate all of my money, and so on, and then, I STILL might not get to take over the podium! Is "religious freedom" for them, now the same as "compelled speech"? If so... What do words MEAN, any more?
Greg Abbot lockdown Texas and now wants people to forget. Doesn't he have a hair salon owner to harass.
Doesn’t he have a hair salon owner to harass.
Not anymore:
"The pandemic is over. C'mon man! Even Corn Pop knows that!" - Joe Biden, probably
14th District Court judge threw the hair lady in jail
And Abbott signed the executive order. Screw any pro-lockdown politician, they can all rot in hell together.
sure. one of them is running against Beto O'Rourke though
That sucks for you and TX.
It really does.
Cute trick (for brainlets), but if they really wanted to push the point, they change their required post to say that the GOP is a bunch of n-word lovers.
Like I pointed out in the morning links thread, these queers taking the hilarious stance that exercising free speech to protest free speech just shows how mentally deficient these people are.
Free speech means the government doesn't force you to say things.
How fucking remedial are you people?
These corporations by their own admission are saying the speech is not theirs retard.
No, that's not what it means. You should probably ask yourself that same question while looking in a mirror.
Subreddit Gets Users To Call Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a 'Little Piss Baby' To Defy Content Moderation Law
Ok, I've only read the headline here, but my head is spinning with visions of quintuple negatives here...
So, people are being allowed to criticize the Governor of Texas... because the Governor of Texas created a law which allows Criticism of the Governor on Tech Platforms which the Tech Platform would nominally ban, but instead this speech is allowed to proliferate freely, because Greg Abbott signed a law allowing unfettered free speech on the tech platforms.
Mandating banning the mandated mandate...
As of this week, the subreddit r/PoliticalHumor is requiring that all posts include the phrase "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby" or else users will be banned from the forum, per reporting by TechDirt. Moderators have made explicit that they will be discriminating against all users posting viewpoints that go against the piss-baby line in protest of Texas' new content moderation law, H.B. 20, which forces social media platforms to host speech they find objectionable.
Oh, ok, this is a little trickier. Fucking Reddit (no one has yet explained to me why an internet comment board requires a CEO). So Reddit is just banning people based on their political views.
So... *rubbing my temples* REDDIT is merely continuing to do what it's already been doing forever and that's the #RESISTANCE. Ok.
You are simply failing to properly appreciate Wolfe's geometric logic.
To be fair, it’s not Reddit the company doing the banning, it’s the PoliticalHumor subreddit moderators.
I see that Abbott has some Santorum on his face.
Yes, and... I need to run off, now, to my porcelain throne, and make a Donald Trump! From how I feel just about right now, it (my Donald Trump, that is, that I will have to try and pass, somehow) is probably SOOOO large, that I will have to SPANK it, when it finally emerges!!!
I always thought it was hilarious that leftists used faggot practices to mock conservatives.
This is the second article this week I disagree with. The first about legislation that began to chip away at the catastrophe that is Citizen's United and Reason went and pissed about the 'poor corporations right' to fuck our elections. And now this BS.
When your market capitalization is beyond the GDP of the the bottom 90% of countries on Earth, and you have power to fully determine how most everyone views the world, what is news worthy and what is not, you are a media outlet and your First Amendment rights are out the door. I am anti-government interference in business in general, but we cannot condone censorship and propaganda in the hands of a tiny elite, it does not end well. If it is a choice between the rights of natural persons and corporate persons, then the rights go to natural persons.
I am anti-government interference in business in general, but we cannot condone censorship and propaganda in the hands of a tiny elite, it does not end well. If it is a choice between the rights of natural persons and corporate persons, then the rights go to natural persons.
Well said. Remember, reason doesn’t really like freedom. Reason likes rule by top men. It just wants those top men to be those who run the corporations you describe instead of being government bureaucrats.
Reason is pro business, not pro free enterprise. And they are vastly different.
lol hilarious.
A famous politician proposed a constitutional amendment that reads:
“the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes.”
Guess who proposed it? Here's a hint: it wasn't Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley
your First Amendment rights are out the door.
CONGRESS WILL PASS NO LAW.
But we libertarians turn our head as corporations do so at behest of government.
You really are stopping far too short on your ideals.
"the catastrophe that is Citizen’s United"
I'd enjoy hearing your Libertarian argument for why CU is a catastrophe. Individuals have rights, but groups of individuals do not have rights? Convince me with logic and reason. No emotions and feelings.
What's funny is Citizen's United never would have been an issue had that come up today. CU would have been banned and deplatformed by every major tech and communications company because of Terms of Service violations and "election interference".
The Abbott law, as misguided as it might be, attempts to allow all speech unfettered on the platforms, including that which might be construed as "corporate election interference" (which, by the way, Mark Zuckerberg engaged in via censoring speech on his own platforms).
There is a large percentage of libertarians who seemingly would support fascism as long as it was somewhat hidden. They deny a nexus of power anywhere outside government.
Persons don't have a right to shout Nazi slogans on someone's private property, even if they were invited there to say other things. They can be kicked off.
If you want to socialize these private media companies, by all means. Then we can submit them to rigorous standards of objectivity.
Then we can start socializing all the companies I want to socialize too.
The issue comes from having your cake and eating it too. Claiming protections against lawsuit because they don’t edit and curate content on their sites all while they prolifically edit and curate content on their sites is the problem.
In your hypothetical, you left out that the homeowner is subject of being sued. That’s the difference here.
By all means, remove section 230 or whatever. See how much neo-Nazi crap gets published then.
The First Amendment requires a higher bar for removal, however.
so what if "neo-Nazi crap gets published"?? there should be NO content moderation (censorship) on any site. if you don't like what is published then move on to another site or use the scroll wheel on your mouse. is that really too difficult for you??
If you want to socialize these private media companies, by all means. Then we can submit them to rigorous standards of objectivity.
No, we'll be using it to hurt your feelings.
I think the goal may be as the author describes but I have read that reddit and other message boards (the chans) also do this to mess up google and search engine algorithms.
Imagine if every time someone googled the Governor of Texas the first 10pages of results were all 'Gov Abbot is a little piss baby' type responses.
Merely funny or outrageously hilarious?
Sure it is funny. The problem is that if someone did the same thing to Peter Buttigeig so that the first response was “Buttigieg is an ass fucking pervert “ these very same people would dox me and want me banned from every platform. And that is not so hilarious. These people think freedom goes one way; their way over everyone else
They'd also modify the algo to remove all of the brigading or google bombing or whatever you want to call it.
I am not saying I agree with the point (google bombing). Just that it could have been an intended result…directed at Gov Abbot in particular. (Ken Paxton would have been a better target in my opinion?)
In all these debates I am reminded of the southpark episode involving the human centipede…where Kyle or whichever keeps accepting online “terms of service” without actually reading them and apple’s has him agreeing to be surgically connected (orally) to someone else’s asshole and in turn having someone's mouth surgically attached to his.
Not sure how the ToS apply overall to the 1st amendment claim but it seems like a somewhat convenient out for the companies to say “we are not removing content because its X (x being conservative or some particular viewpoint) but rather the poster simply abused the terms of service which the person agreed to in advance of setting up an account and being able to post anything at all.
I practice exclusively in state criminal law so this is beyond anything that really interests me. I do find it funny that truth social and parler and the rest (set up to compete with facebook and twitter etc…) also ban people based on expressed viewpoint. But they ain’t big enough to fall under Texas’ law. So maybe the Reddit kids should also join Truth Social to boost its numbers to meet the threshold under Texas law at issue here and then sue truth social for banning them when they post critical of Trump or GOP. That would be actual activism beyond mere parody or prank.
I don't think anyone would take issue with any of these companies if they were as up front in their moderation policies as that Subreddit.
The problem comes in when a company like Facebook and Twitter CLAIM they are being balanced and welcoming of various viewpoints, but then ONLY ban in one direction politically.
Or even worse when they "Fact Check" something that is true, and call it a lie.
The real solution that bypasses all the sticky 1st amendment issues is to just pass a law that says that any user whose statement is factchecked to be "untrue" and later proves to be factual, that the social media company must pay them $10,000 per incident.
But that’s forcing the company to host speech it doesn’t want!!!1!1!1!1! SQRLSY and Tony.
i can tell you from direct experience that reddit is as good as you may think. i was banned for saying things that are said every day on reason. after being banned i tried to appeal the ban, but that is not possible. the moderators refuse to have any communication with anyone. it's a complete black hole. there is no accountability for the moderators. they may claim to be "protecting the readers from hate speech", but they're doing it through fiat. there is no due process for the user.
missed hitting edit. meant to say "reddit is as NOT good as you may think".
Cut at the relevant time: Journalist discusses Big Tech "fact checking" regime, its history, how it started, who was behind it and why.
Healthcare must be left to the free market.
Twitter, however, that's too important not to become an agent of the state.
I guess I didn't realize just how terminally online this Trump cult horseshit was. I thought you met online and gathered in real life to burn down capitol buildings and kidnap governors.
Turns out social media is so much your life blood that you abandon even the most basic principles of small government that everyone agrees with in order to force it to keep juicing you with hate memes.
It's funny how hard you work to not understand the positions that people take.
I guess that would get in the way of your righteous anger and hatred, huh?
You want to employ some private company's resources to publish your speech against its will. What else is there to know?
I'm fine with it if it causes their workers to kill themselves.
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
Hah, I figured that would set the shitmuncher off.
Right there with you. They can water the tree all by themselves.
Government isn’t much involved in publishing newspapers. They watch their own ass so they don’t get sued. It would be the same for twatter sans 230. If they get sued out of existence, boo ffing hoo.
I remember seeing a bit on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, showing how editing can completely change the original statement, using the original words, cut and/or rearranged.
The platforms were given Section 230 as a shield, so that they couldn't be held responsible for what users had to say.
They then decided to edit, block or delete things that didn't agree with their agenda, yet are claiming that Section 230 protects them from criticism for doing so.
This is like a guy who kills his parents, then wants clemency because he's an orphan.
That'll show him!
I actually live in Texas, and I appreciate that Abbott is attempting to foster an environment more conducive to real free speech. Like him, I don't understand how companies that have ridden free and profited exponentially from the infrastructure the government and utilities provided to the internet can justify stifling the freedom of speech that made their enterprises possible. I understand why they want to, it gives them leverage.
The interstate freeway system was also provided by the government. Those that profit from the transportation capabilities those roads provide must follow the rules for common carriers. Why do we treat those who profit from the internet differently? It seems simple. Either you transport everything like a common carrier and are not held responsible for the content or you curate and you are a publisher and liable for the content. Anything less is arbitrary and subject to abuse.
So hold them responsible for the stuff they publish. Either way, the First Amendment is still there.
The First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies. It requires the opposite of what you're advocating, which is for the government to force private companies to publish stuff against their will.
Stop distracting from the real issue and advocate for the repeal of the First Amendment so that you can point government guns at Twitter to force them to say what you want them to say.
The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private companies. It requires the opposite of what you’re advocating, which is for the government to force private companies to publish stuff against their will
That is a blatant and instantly disprovable lie.
Twitter is not being forced to publish anything, as Twitter is not a publisher. That is the whole point and how they both avoid liability and are allowed to censor speech under the current legislation. The user of Twitter is the publisher and, without question, the party liable for what gets tweeted.
A good comparison would be a flea market. It does not own the products sold in the stalls. If the property owner refuses to rent to someone who is selling a Star of David pendant, they would be subject to civil liability, historically justified by the courts in support of freedom of religion and implemented under the commerce clause. How is it that there is there no corresponding right to access the marketplace for speech? Isn't a symbol just another way of representing ideas?
Everybody else has a right to free speech just as valid as anyone else. If people can't handle that, they shouldn't engage in public discourse. There are no lack of alternatives, but Twitter certainly appreciates it when people behave like nothing else exists.
By the way, it is absurd that you represent allowing tweeters to say what they want as forcing Twitter to say what I want them say. I get whole Red Blue Green Tony schtick. You post like you have traveled here from Bizarro world.
I’m not really sure I understand the point of the article. “Now, people are hilariously testing how far Texas will go in winnowing away at companies' abilities to decide which content they host”…you mean free speech on social media (message board)? The whole point of the law? Not saying I truly like this law 100% as is, but I mean, I’ve seen worse, from the realist’s perspective; lawmakers will pass laws, some good, some bad, some illegal and you do what you can as a citizen to combat said law. In all honestly though, the only thing this really achieves is pissing off a good percentage of the people who post there. Obviously some will think it’s a “good own”, like the author, some will find it offensive, and most will find it unnecessary, because this is the type of thing you do when you consume the 24/7 media, 24/7.
I'd be curious to see the Venn diagram among the opponents of TX HR20 to see how many were also ardent proponents of "Net Neutrality" in 2014-2017, and how many desperately want to see Citizens United repealed because the idea that "corporations have rights under 1A" is an "existential threat" to our Democracy (such as it is).
For Tony, that perfect Venn diagram is a perfect circle.
The Venn Diagram for any single individual is a perfect circle using any possible number of sorting criteria.
There are tens of millions of people falling into each of the sets I mentioned, the point wasn't just to open the door to take an illogical personal shot at some random stranger.
It's amazing how dense the some of you all are. If 230 was repealed or neutered by the courts, this message board and any like it would disappear, because no website is going to risk being sued into bankruptcy because some random idiot slandered your mom or posted a kiddie porn pic that they didn't take down "fast enough", however fast that might be. The risk/reward would be entirely in favor of eliminating such user-driven sections of the websites.
So no, you won't get to force everyone to listen to your crazy uncle rants or look at your dick pics. Rather, we will all just have nothing.
Wrong.
Section 230 did not invent the no-liability regime for distributing user content on computer information services; Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. did, back in 1991.
However, under Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. in 1994, Prodigy's content screening was ruled an exercise of editorial discretion, and accordingly switched Prodigy from a distributor of user content to the publisher of content of its own choice. As a publisher, Prodigy was liable, while the censorship-free CompuServe was a non-liable distributor.
The entire purpose of the Communications Decency Act, including its Section 230, was to enable censorship. It accordingly declared that content-filtering publishers like Prodigy would enjoy the same immunity that was established for unfiltered content distributors like CompuServe.
All repeal of Section 230 would do is return us to the legal regime of 1994, where unfiltered distribution of user content is immune to liability, while filtered systems are liable.
The available profits in distributing user content then assure us that there will be plenty of platforms that choose to distribute user content; all lawsuits will do is ensure that none of them exercise anything resembling editorial discretion over the content.
The model to solve that issue has been around since before most people think the internet existed.
Usenet "alt" groups were generally completely without moderation or supervision, but were "hosted" via some kind of distributed protocol which left literally nobody to be held to account for the existence of any particular board, let alone the particulars of the content there. Pretty much anyone could create a new group under the "alt" heading, and while Bill Clinton was calling for the establishment of an "information superhighway" in the fall of 1992 the people who were already on that highway were using those boards to share everything from trash talking about college marching bands, to porn pics and videos (although at 14400 baud, 35 seconds of 360x480 video took half a day to download), to fictional recipes for cooking lemur, to the most offensive jokes that anyone could imagine at the time.
The UI wasn't pretty, and it required some agility with a unix command line to access those boards, but it was pretty much impossible to find anyone to sue over content except for maybe an individual poster.
How is anyone supposed to sell personal information, bot up their stock price, or monetize anything with that ridiculous model?
What we have now is a total shit show, so that's what we'll lose. Commenting sections are generally not worth it. I say that as someone using one, in one.
Maybe the elimination of comment sections will encourage people to make friends in meat space.
Whining Woke Liberal Cry Babies Subreddit Gets Users To Call Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a 'Little Piss Baby' For Supporting the Second Admendment
Are stunts good or bad? What's the groupthink of the day?
the answer to the social media's censorship is not abbot's law. the correct answer is to simply not use the platforms. leave the censoring to the leftists who love it. i deleted every single account on all platforms that censor (fakebook, twitter, instagram, linkedin, etc.). if everyone who opposes the censorship deleted their accounts it would have a big impact.
Do the idiots on this subreddit have any idea what they're even trying to accomplish? Are Redditiots capable of higher thought processes?
Forced speech that they approve of, which happens to be mean to Gov Abbott is supposed to do what exactly in the face of a law meant to prevent them from censoring speech that they don't like?
Abbot declares that social media should not censor speakers, and the response is childish insults that aren't censored?
This seems to be an attempt to "own" someone in a way that misunderstands what they want.
All Abbott has to say to turn this around completely is "well, it's a free country, and they are free to express themselves, so what is the problem?"
moderating isn't editing.
It easily can be.
For example, Let's take the "moderating" of the Rings of Power reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has been pretty brazen in mass deleting of negative reviews while leaving positive reviews, even those that were quite clearly left by bot accounts.
They technically only moderated, but ended up giving a major change to the aggregate score.
the 5th circuit disagrees with you and so will scotus if it reaches them
@Liz Wolfe, aren't you based out of Texas? It would be cool to see more Texas coverage from Reason!
So, to prove there is no real reason to force comments, one of the Internet groups benefitting from lawlessness has to fabricate an objection ! Logic anyone?
and on the same PAGE as this is
YouTube Says Giorgia Meloni Video Was Removed in Error, Restores It After Inquiry
"Upon careful review, we determined this video is not violative of our Community Guidelines and have reinstated it,"
Yesterday I saw that well over 95% of YouTube employees donated to Democrat candidates. Same with Google...so when they say OUR Guidelines they mean 'NOT YOURS"
I don't get this law. Most tech companies are based in Silicon Valley. How can Texas make them host content they find objectionable?
You do realize Austin is a tech hub, right?