Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums[Even the cases where] Republicans clearly and obviously violated the Constitution, are nail-biters.
VoxLink to tweet
The Supreme Court handed down a brief order on Tuesday blocking a Texas law that would have effectively seized control over the entire content moderation process at major social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
The Texas law imposed such burdensome requirements on these sites, including disclosure requirements that may literally be impossible to comply with, that it presented an existential threat to the entire social media industry. Facebook, for example, removes billions of pieces of content from its website every year. The Texas law would require Facebook to publish a written explanation of each of these decisions.
At the very least, the law would have prevented major social media sites from engaging in the most basic forms of content moderation such as suppressing posts by literal Nazis who advocate for mass genocide, or banning people who stalk and harass their former romantic partners.
The Texas law imposed such burdensome requirements on these sites, including disclosure requirements that may literally be impossible to comply with, that it presented an existential threat to the entire social media industry. Facebook, for example, removes billions of pieces of content from its website every year. The Texas law would require Facebook to publish a written explanation of each of these decisions.
At the very least, the law would have prevented major social media sites from engaging in the most basic forms of content moderation such as suppressing posts by literal Nazis who advocate for mass genocide, or banning people who stalk and harass their former romantic partners.
The law effectively forbids the major social media sites from banning a user, from regulating or restricting a users content, or even from altering the algorithms that surface content to other users because of a users viewpoint.
In practice, this rule would make content moderation impossible. Suppose, for example, that a Twitter user named @HitlerWasRight sent a tweet calling for the systematic execution of all Jewish people. Under Texass law, Twitter could not delete this tweet, or ban this user, if it did not do the same to any user who took the opposite viewpoint that is, that Jews should be allowed to continue living.
In practice, this rule would make content moderation impossible. Suppose, for example, that a Twitter user named @HitlerWasRight sent a tweet calling for the systematic execution of all Jewish people. Under Texass law, Twitter could not delete this tweet, or ban this user, if it did not do the same to any user who took the opposite viewpoint that is, that Jews should be allowed to continue living.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 561 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
[Even the cases where] Republicans clearly and obviously violated the Constitution, are nail-biters. (Original Post)
In It to Win It
May 2022
OP
Didn't Trump sue Twitter to get back on it and the judgment was that these social media companies
Karadeniz
May 2022
#1
My memory is fuzzy on it but I think that only went as far as the District Court
In It to Win It
May 2022
#2
Apparently, as a general rule, Justice Kagan does not like making decisions using the court's
In It to Win It
May 2022
#4
Karadeniz
(22,516 posts)1. Didn't Trump sue Twitter to get back on it and the judgment was that these social media companies
are privately owned and permitted to set their own standards? If that's the case, I don't see how this TX law ever made it as far as the SC.
In It to Win It
(8,251 posts)2. My memory is fuzzy on it but I think that only went as far as the District Court
District court decisions aren't binding precedent. I'm unsure if Trump ever appealed, but I don't believe he did.
Zeitghost
(3,858 posts)3. It's not often you see
Kagen join a dissent with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.
In It to Win It
(8,251 posts)4. Apparently, as a general rule, Justice Kagan does not like making decisions using the court's
emergency docket without hearing the arguments so she dissents.