Appaently operators of social media websites have to stop operating in Texas or allow any/all political views to be published? Did I read this correctly - the Federal Appeals court sided with the State of Texas.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/16/texas-social-media-law/

 

I would contend that no one is being banned because of their political viewpoint, they are banned because they threaten violence or spread dangerous misinformation. That is not the same thing as a political viewpoint.

If a social media company would ban that same text from a leftist and not ban it from a rightist, or vice versa, that would be banning someone based on political viewpoint, but I don't see that happening.

 

Update: I was wrong. One social media platform has banned users for posting about about the proceedings of a congressional committee.

 

I would contend that no one is being banned because of their political viewpoint, they are banned because they threaten violence or spread dangerous misinformation. That is not the same thing as a political viewpoint.

If a social media company would ban that same text from a leftist and not ban it from a rightist, or vice versa, that would be banning someone based on political viewpoint, but I don't see that happening.

.
You don't see because You are not looking.
I can provide a substantial list of, not just banned, or "penalized",
but completely DELETED YouTube-Channels that were diametrically-opposed-to
"" ........ banned because they threaten violence or spread dangerous misinformation ......... ""
they were just good, honest, hard-working people, WITH THE "WRONG-OPINION".

" Dangerous-Misinformation " .......
Who gets to decide what information is "Dangerous" ??????
Who gets to decide what information is "Misinformation" ??????
Who gets to decide what words constitute "Violence" ??????
( because using certain words can now officially be called "committing-Violence",
if certain people don't like the idea that the words represent )

Have You ever heard of a thing called "Propaganda" ?

Couldn't happen here right ?, that's only in Communist-Countries ...............

Your exorbitant Tax-Dollars at work .......

It's really easy to make someone into a fool,
and all but impossible to get them to admit,
or sometimes to even get them to consider the remote possibility that,
they might have been made into a fool,
especially when it may have occurred multiple times, and/or, for long periods of time.
This is a demonstrable FACT, and NO-ONE is immune from it.
.
.
.

 

Interesting

 

I can provide a substantial list of, not just banned, or "penalized",
but completely DELETED YouTube-Channels that were diametrically-opposed-to
"" ........ banned because they threaten violence or spread dangerous misinformation ......... ""
they were just good, honest, hard-working people, WITH THE "WRONG-OPINION".

Bring it on, I would love to see it.

" Dangerous-Misinformation " .......
Who gets to decide what information is "Dangerous" ??????

The owner of the platform, I thought that was clear. Neither you nor I has a right to post in any site. That is a privilege granted by the owner.

Have You ever heard of a thing called "Propaganda" ?

Couldn't happen here right ?, that's only in Communist-Countries ...............

Your exorbitant Tax-Dollars at work .......

Theae are related to government. We are not talking about governments here. Youtube and Facebook are not the government.

It's really easy to make someone into a fool,
and all but impossible to get the them to admit,
or sometimes to even get them to consider the remote possibility that,
they might have been made into a fool,
especially when it may have occurred multiple times, and/or, for long periods of time.
This is a demonstrable FACT, and NO-ONE is immune from it.
.

No idea what you are talking about here. I thought we were discussing social media’s right to regulate their platforms.

 

According to our US Constitution, it is your inalienable right to act like a jackass and lie your ass off as long as you don't break any laws or perjure yourself in court. That leaves a whole LOT of room for interpretation and speculation as to what the facts are. There is no constitutional right to being offended and there are a whole lot of offensive people who love being so and are protected constitutionally. I try to ignore them and hope they go away but so far that doesn't seem to work. At least the going away part... But I am free to remove myself from their presence and ignore their obnoxiousness.

 

Agreed, and if I happen to start a social media company, the government cannot tell me who I can and cannot ban. That is what the Texas law is doing. If you don’t like my bannng you, you are absolutely free to start your own social media company any and ban me. That is exactly what Trump did, snd support that right.

I think it is hilarious that I (a left wing-nut) am arguing against government regulation and the right wing-nuts are arguing for it. Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?

 

Agreed, and if I happen to start a social media company, the government cannot tell me who I can and cannot ban. That is what the Texas law is doing. If you don’t like my bannng you, you are absolutely free to start your own social media company any and ban me. That is exactly what Trump did, snd support that right.

I think it is hilarious that I (a left wing-nut) am arguing against government regulation and the right wing-nuts are arguing for it. Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?

Thank you.

 

Just wait till You find out that all the major Social-Media Sites
were made by, and are run by, 3-Letter-Agencies.
This has been common knowledge for more than ~5-years that I have been aware of it.
The major News-Networks would NEVER tell a Lie, NOT-EVER, NO-WAY !!!
( they've been doing exactly that, continuously, starting way before Radio was invented )
.
.
.

 

Just wait till You find out that all the major Social-Media Sites
were made by, and are run by, 3-Letter-Agencies.
This has been common knowledge for more than ~5-years that I have been aware of it.
The major News-Networks would NEVER tell a Lie, NOT-EVER, NO-WAY !!!
( they've been doing exactly that, continuously, starting way before Radio was invented )
.
.
.

So I'm confused, does Zuckerberg work for a three letter agency? Or does he own the three-later-organization? Do I own stock in the CIA?

 

"" does Zuckerberg work for a three letter agency? ""

Yes.
He's just a "Front-Man", and works for the Clowns-In-America.

A Quote from former CIA-Director William Casey .....
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when
everything the American public believes is false.”
.
.
.

 

According to our US Constitution, it is your inalienable right to act like a jackass and lie your ass off as long as you don't break any laws or perjure yourself in court. That leaves a whole LOT of room for interpretation and speculation as to what the facts are. There is no constitutional right to being offended and there are a whole lot of offensive people who love being so and are protected constitutionally. I try to ignore them and hope they go away but so far that doesn't seem to work. At least the going away part... But I am free to remove myself from their presence and ignore their obnoxiousness.

To be clear, in the Unites States there are libel and slander laws to consider. The truth is one's defense, but only if one wrote/spoke only the truth.

 

I think the problems begin when social media companies become the de-facto public soapbox and people start to believe that they are treating all people fairly.

Every site should be required to hang a large red banner that says...This site has a political bias, and will use it"

 

I think the problems begin when social media companies become the de-facto public soapbox and people start to believe that they are treating all people fairly.

Every site should be required to hang a large red banner that says...This site has a political bias, and will use it"

If you already know it, is a label needed?
Do you need label on liquor, beer and wine bottles that says, "contains alcohol, may cause you to drive poorly and make bad decisions which may result in pregnancy"

The whole Texas law is a political maneuver know as "throwing red meat to the base".

 

Well based on that logic we can remove the warning labels on cigarettes.

There are plenty of people that believe social media sites are fair and square.

 

Well based on that logic we can remove the warning labels on cigarettes.

There are plenty of people that believe social media sites are fair and square.

Have those warnings on the packages stopped anyone from smoking?

 

Once you put a warning label on everything, it's the same as putting warning labels on nothing.
See California Proposition 65, for example.

 

Have those warnings on the packages stopped anyone from smoking?

I can't answer that.

But I am an advocate of consumer information...up to the point. where it becomes silly

 

Have those warnings on the packages stopped anyone from smoking?

Actually, while it can't be proven as to the reason, smoking is on the decline, unlike the days when everybody smoked in the movies (as advertisement).



The point isn't to stop people from smoking... point is to EDUCATE and letting people make their own decisions. Instead be being deceptive. But the curtains have been pulled. Everyone knows.