The Social Dilemma

[Alan Klein]

So if Twitter wants to continue doing what it is currently doing, then you want to remove the existing liability protection for social media outlets, which, as a consequence, will give you the right to sue Josh if I libel you on LuLa?

I didn't say we should remove existing liability protection for social media outlets in general.  What I'm saying is that if a particular social media outlet like Twitter  begins to operate as a publisher, than they lose that protection.  I don;t know how and who decides which particular sites fall into each category.  It could be tested in court when someone sues Twitter claiming they lost their protection.  Then a jury would have to decide if they did in fact not follow the law that protected them.  I'm sure it would be appealed by whichever side lost and eventually wind up in the Supreme Court where Amy Corey Barret would make the deciding vote. Then we could argue about it here assuming Jeremy doesn't censor us. 

[Alan Klein]

What a bunch of gibberish.

See how well the law is working.  We both have differing opinions about this.  We both can state them without risk of liability which extends to LuLa.  Everyone is happy.  Free and open debate.  Others can listen, add their opinions, or say nothing if they choose.  Free and open is wonderful.  It's those who want to shut down one side or the other who they disagree with who are the ones nervous about freedom.  That's what Twitter was doing.

[faberryman]

I didn't say we should remove existing liability protection for social media outlets in general.  What I'm saying is that if a particular social media outlet like Twitter begins to operate as a publisher, than they lose that protection.  I don;t know how and who decides which particular sites fall into each category.  It could be tested in court when someone sues Twitter claiming they lost their protection.  Then a jury would have to decide if they did in fact not follow the law that protected them.  I'm sure it would be appealed by whichever side lost and eventually wind up in the Supreme Court where Amy Corey Barret would make the deciding vote. Then we could argue about it here assuming Jeremy doesn't censor us. 

What is the difference between what Jeremy does on LuLa and what Twitter has been doing recently.

[Robert Roaldi]

This is a short section of the transcript from that Fresh Air podcast that I mentioned earlier, which explains why social media were not initially made responsible for content provided by contributors (I assume I can reproduce this short section) but the entire transcript is here https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925755387/unfettered-free-speech-is-a-threat-to-democracy-journalist-says.

DAVIES: Right. And just so we understand this, the immunity from libel suits - that comes from the Communications Decency Act of 1996. And what was the kind of public-interest principle that protected them from this kind of liability?

BAZELON: I mean, it was really this idea that it was so important to have the Internet grow, that you wanted to make sure that people couldn't sue the people who were setting up the platforms and providing content on the Internet because you didn't want to stifle its growth. And one of the problems that at least people project about libel suits is that - so if I come along and I post something that's really mean about you, but it might be true - and then I post that on, say, Twitter. And then you go to Twitter, and you say, that's libel. I'm going to sue. Twitter could look at that and say, well, we don't know if this is true or not. We don't want to pay to litigate this and defend it. So we're just going to take it down. And so that's the concern. It's sometimes called the heckler's veto. The people who complain are going to get a lot of content taken down. And that's going to promote overcensorship. So that's what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was supposed to prevent.


So at that time, Congress thought there was a specific reason to do what they did. People argue that the circumstances have changed greatly since then. Social media algorithms do NOT ensure fair play, they encourage the loudest voices that create outrage and controversy because media's self-interest DOES NOT necessarily care about free speech (why should it since they are not the government) but rather their only interest is to ensure more clicks. What people seem to be saying (according to the interviewee) is that this arrangement should be revisited because circumstances have changed.

[Alan Klein]

What is the difference between what Jeremy does on LuLa and what Twitter has been doing recently.

Twitter shut down political speech on one side claiming it was only blocking offensive material.  That's just silly.  Nothing a president says is offensive.  He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say.  It was obviously a political action they took.   If Josh shut down Trump's posts and not Biden's, he would be acting like Twitter.   If standard and rules are not applied equally by Jeremy or Twitter which is allowed under Section 230 law, then a site including this one, should not have protection.  Here's the law 47 Section 230.  Twitter may have screwed themselves and other sites like them.  BY playing politics they pissed off the very people who wrote this law to give them this protection.  They also hurt the public because this law helps us all to maintain free speech that we cherish.  The outcome may be to limit future availability of open communications like we have here.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[Alan Klein]

This is a short section of the transcript from that Fresh Air podcast that I mentioned earlier, which explains why social media were not initially made responsible for content provided by contributors (I assume I can reproduce this short section) but the entire transcript is here https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925755387/unfettered-free-speech-is-a-threat-to-democracy-journalist-says.

DAVIES: Right. And just so we understand this, the immunity from libel suits - that comes from the Communications Decency Act of 1996. And what was the kind of public-interest principle that protected them from this kind of liability?

BAZELON: I mean, it was really this idea that it was so important to have the Internet grow, that you wanted to make sure that people couldn't sue the people who were setting up the platforms and providing content on the Internet because you didn't want to stifle its growth. And one of the problems that at least people project about libel suits is that - so if I come along and I post something that's really mean about you, but it might be true - and then I post that on, say, Twitter. And then you go to Twitter, and you say, that's libel. I'm going to sue. Twitter could look at that and say, well, we don't know if this is true or not. We don't want to pay to litigate this and defend it. So we're just going to take it down. And so that's the concern. It's sometimes called the heckler's veto. The people who complain are going to get a lot of content taken down. And that's going to promote overcensorship. So that's what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was supposed to prevent.


So at that time, Congress thought there was a specific reason to do what they did. People argue that the circumstances have changed greatly since then. Social media algorithms do NOT ensure fair play, they encourage the loudest voices that create outrage and controversy because media's self-interest DOES NOT necessarily care about free speech (why should it since they are not the government) but rather their only interest is to ensure more clicks. What people seem to be saying (according to the interviewee) is that this arrangement should be revisited because circumstances have changed.

But that's not what happened with Twitter.  There was no threat of lawsuit because Section 230 protects them.  Nor was it shut down because of some algorithm. No algorithm removed somebody's twitter's account which is what was done.  They shut it down and did these things for political reasons.  They didn't like what one side said or who they were.  That was not the intent of the protection law.

[faberryman]

Twitter shut down political speech on one side claiming it was only blocking offensive material.  That's just silly.  Nothing a president says is offensive.  He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say.

That is the most asinine thing I have heard you say, and there are a lot of things in the running.  Trump has said plenty of offensive stuff. If I don't want to listen to what he has to say that's my business. What, next you will want to make me follow Trump or the next president on his Twitter feed because you think I should listen to what he has to say. I don't tell you what you should listen to, so you should just leave me alone. Honest to God, the arrogance of some people.

[Robert Roaldi]

Twitter shut down political speech on one side claiming it was only blocking offensive material.  That's just silly.  Nothing a president says is offensive.  He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say.  It was obviously a political action they took.   

If I remember the original Twitter take-down, it was because he said some gibberish that could not be backed up by facts, which is not exactly the same thing.

But I have to say that your assertion that a President can't say anything offensive is spectacularly funny. Thanks for the belly laugh.

In the end Twitter reversed itself because of what you say " He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say," but I don't believe this applies to everyone, only newsworthy people who have a public presence of some sort, I'm guessing. And it was NOT obviously a political act, you just interpret it that way. Should the President be allowed to say that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers? Should he be allowed to call the Bidens crooks without proof? Is that what you think "free speech" is all about?

Actually they discussed this very sequence of events in that podcast, it's all in the transcript. No, I am not going to summarize it for you. It's all there, one click away. You know what it is in there, up to you to decide to educate yourself or not.

BY playing politics they pissed off the very people who wrote this law to give them this protection.  They also hurt the public because this law helps us all to maintain free speech that we cherish.  The outcome may be to limit future availability of open communications like we have here.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

But if Twitter is not a public space (it's a private one) and private spaces can limit speech, why can't they be allowed to limit speech on their platform? If they came out and said, we will no longer allow right-wing ideas on our site, although I don't know how they could define what that means, why shouldn't they be allowed to? What do they owe you or anyone? The "other" side could always start up their own social media platforms, can't they? No one is preventing them. Do you think many socialists write stuff on 4chan?

[Alan Klein]

Trump has said plenty of offensive stuff. If I don't want to listen to what he has to say that's my business. What, next you will want me to follow Trump or the next president on Twitter because I should listen to it. I don't tell you what you should listen to, so you should just leave me alone.

No one's stopping Twitter from taking sides.  The NY Times does it all the time as does CNN, ABC, Fox, and the Washington Post.  But they're not protected by Section 230.  If Twitter wants to play politics and take sides, more power to them. Their choice.  But they have to give up the law's protection. 

Shutting down political speech from the president is taking sides.  If Twitter doesn't understand that, Congress will teach them.  After all, the Democrats are just as pissed as the Republicans for what social media did to Hillary in 2016. 

[JoeKitchen]

I didn't say we should remove existing liability protection for social media outlets in general.  What I'm saying is that if a particular social media outlet like Twitter  begins to operate as a publisher, than they lose that protection.  I don;t know how and who decides which particular sites fall into each category.  It could be tested in court when someone sues Twitter claiming they lost their protection.  Then a jury would have to decide if they did in fact not follow the law that protected them.  I'm sure it would be appealed by whichever side lost and eventually wind up in the Supreme Court where Amy Corey Barret would make the deciding vote. Then we could argue about it here assuming Jeremy doesn't censor us. 

If the legislature does not handle this, Justice Thomas will. 

In a recent opinion he stated the need for the courts to weigh in on this law.  I see it getting challenged within the year. 

[JoeKitchen]

That is the most asinine thing I have heard you say, and there are a lot of things in the running.  Trump has said plenty of offensive stuff. If I don't want to listen to what he has to say that's my business. What, next you will want to make me follow Trump or the next president on his Twitter feed because you think I should listen to what he has to say. I don't tell you what you should listen to, so you should just leave me alone. Honest to God, the arrogance of some people.

You are wrong. 

The law was never intended for censorship.  It was intended to allow companies to removed stuff like porn in their threads. 

If they act like a publisher, then they should loose their liability protection. 

[Robert Roaldi]

No one's stopping Twitter from taking sides.  The NY Times does it all the time as does CNN, ABC, Fox, and the Washington Post.  But they're not protected by Section 230.  If Twitter wants to play politics and take sides, more power to them. Their choice.  But they have to give up the law's protection. 

Why is this so? Do you know this for sure because it sounds like an opinion to me, or maybe it's how you think it should work. Which is fair enough.

My understanding (from that podcast) is that social media can't be sued for libel for things contributors write. I don't know for a fact that they have to be fair-sided. Seems like a separate issue. Why do this think this is the case?

Shutting down political speech from the president is taking sides.  If Twitter doesn't understand that, Congress will teach them.  After all, the Democrats are just as pissed as the Republicans for what social media did to Hillary in 2016.

Surely they're allowed to shut down lies and disinformation. If it happens to come from one political party or another, or from one politician or another, is irrelevant. Go read the first few paragraphs of that transcript for an example. (When you're done, report back and summarize it for us.    )

[Alan Klein]

If I remember the original Twitter take-down, it was because he said some gibberish that could not be backed up by facts, which is not exactly the same thing.

But I have to say that your assertion that a President can't say anything offensive is spectacularly funny. Thanks for the belly laugh.

In the end Twitter reversed itself because of what you say " He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say," but I don't believe this applies to everyone, only newsworthy people who have a public presence of some sort, I'm guessing. And it was NOT obviously a political act, you just interpret it that way. Should the President be allowed to say that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers? Should he be allowed to call the Bidens crooks without proof? Is that what you think "free speech" is all about?

Actually they discussed this very sequence of events in that podcast, it's all in the transcript. No, I am not going to summarize it for you. It's all there, one click away. You know what it is in there, up to you to decide to educate yourself or not.



But if Twitter is not a public space (it's a private one) and private spaces can limit speech, why can't they be allowed to limit speech on their platform? If they came out and said, we will no longer allow right-wing ideas on our site, although I don't know how they could define what that means, why shouldn't they be allowed to? What do they owe you or anyone? The "other" side could always start up their own social media platforms, can't they? No one is preventing them. Do you think many socialists write stuff on 4chan?

Of course he can say something offensive to your ears but not in the context of being the national leader.  People want to hear what he has to say even if you don't.  To censor his speech on a private twitter feed going to people who signed up to hear what he has to say is censorship. Who's being hurt by that.  If you don't like what he has to say, don't listen.  Cancel yoiur subscription to his twitter feed.  Just like here in LuLa. And it should be applied to everyone.  And that's where the problem really starts.  You have private entities censoring speech that they think is offensive.  That's OK but it has to be applied fairly.

Sure private entities are allowed to publish what they want.  The NY Times does.  But they have no protection of law from section 230.  The reason the twitters were given this protection was to prevent them from censorsoring speech as the Times does in order to encourage internet expansion and use and allowing unimpeded speech.  If a site wants to impede it, they shouldn't have legal protection.  That's not protected by the constitution.  Free speech is. 

[faberryman]

You are wrong. 

The law was never intended for censorship.  It was intended to allow companies to removed stuff like porn in their threads. 

If they act like a publisher, then they should loose their liability protection.

Alan told me I should listen to what the President has to say. Stuff it.

[Robert Roaldi]

You are wrong. 

The law was never intended for censorship.  It was intended to allow companies to removed stuff like porn in their threads. 

If they act like a publisher, then they should loose their liability protection.

Go read the very first example in the transcript from that podcast above. What is the benefit to the commonwealth in allowing that kind of disinformation to proliferate just because some people think it falls under free speech? How is that different than shouting Fire in a theatre?

My understanding is that the free speech provision in the constitution is a limited thing that only prevents the government from shutting down people's speech. Not sure if or why it applies to social media without other legislation being involved.

You might be right about current provisions being challenged in court, things seem to be evolving way faster than what the original legislation was created for. So lawsuits may reach the court before Congress can get around to fixing things. Isn't an activist court just terrible? I wonder what the originalists would have to say about Twitter?  (Just having some fun.)

[JoeKitchen]

Go read the very first example in the transcript from that podcast above. What is the benefit to the commonwealth in allowing that kind of disinformation to proliferate just because some people think it falls under free speech? How is that different than shouting Fire in a theatre?

My understanding is that the free speech provision in the constitution is a limited thing that only prevents the government from shutting down people's speech. Not sure if or why it applies to social media without other legislation being involved.

You might be right about current provisions being challenged in court, things seem to be evolving way faster than what the original legislation was created for. So lawsuits may reach the court before Congress can get around to fixing things. Isn't an activist court just terrible? I wonder what the originalists would have to say about Twitter?  (Just having some fun.)

The SCOTUS already ruled on this, and they stated in 1946 that when a company's property becomes so big that it encompasses the  publics discourse, then they are  required to respect the  rights  of the public. 

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

[Alan Klein]

Why is this so? Do you know this for sure because it sounds like an opinion to me, or maybe it's how you think it should work. Which is fair enough.

My understanding (from that podcast) is that social media can't be sued for libel for things contributors write. I don't know for a fact that they have to be fair-sided. Seems like a separate issue. Why do this think this is the case?

Surely they're allowed to shut down lies and disinformation. If it happens to come from one political party or another, or from one politician or another, is irrelevant. Go read the first few paragraphs of that transcript for an example. (When you're done, report back and summarize it for us.    )

The protection law came from politicians. Why should they grant you protection so you can punish them if you don't like one side or the other.  They're not stupid. From a public policy standpoint, I'm not happy that companies that control media stack the deck against politicians I support.  WHile twitter has a right of free speech constitutionally, they have no right to protection from lawsuits unless granted by me through my reps.  If they aren't going to play fair, and punish me and my representatives, I don't want them to have that protection.  I want my representatives to take it away from them.  If they still want the protection, then play fair. Respect everyone's speech.

[JoeKitchen]

Alan told me I should listen to what the President has to say. Stuff it.

No, I dont think Alan told you that.  Just that the President should not be censored. 

You are free to ignore him as you see fit. 

[Alan Klein]

Go read the very first example in the transcript from that podcast above. What is the benefit to the commonwealth in allowing that kind of disinformation to proliferate just because some people think it falls under free speech? How is that different than shouting Fire in a theatre?

My understanding is that the free speech provision in the constitution is a limited thing that only prevents the government from shutting down people's speech. Not sure if or why it applies to social media without other legislation being involved.

You might be right about current provisions being challenged in court, things seem to be evolving way faster than what the original legislation was created for. So lawsuits may reach the court before Congress can get around to fixing things. Isn't an activist court just terrible? I wonder what the originalists would have to say about Twitter?  (Just having some fun.)

No one's shutting down free speech.  We're discussing taking away their protection against lawsuits.

[Alan Klein]

Alan told me I should listen to what the President has to say. Stuff it.

I never said you have to listen. Shut him off.  Just don't shut off my right to listen.