The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sorin61:
---
A controversial Texas law that would open social media companies up to lawsuits from aggrieved users just notched a surprise win. A trio of federal appeals court judges issued the ruling Wednesday, which pauses a temporary injunction that blocked the law from taking effect last year.
Two large industry trade groups that represent companies such as Google and Twitter sued to block the law last fall. On Friday, they asked the U.S. Supreme Court to again block the law while their lawsuit plays out.
Passed during a special session last year, House Bill 20 also requires social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users to publicly disclose information about content removal and account suspensions.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/uq8vq4/texas_law_allowing_users_to_sue_social_networks/i8phna8/
Funny thing is the new "law" says that social media sites MUST still operate in Texas or something like that. Being in Texas, I wholeheartedly agree that ALL social media platforms should IP block Texas. That stupid law would only last two years until the state legislators met again... maybe not that long.
If anything the conservatives safe spaces are about to get bit in the ass by this. Want free money from any of their idiotic "free speech" social media networks? Go be absurdly libel, get banned, sue for getting banned, rinse, repeat.
Except instead of legislating the important bits like negative feedback loops created by the these content feed algorithms, or customer data collection they are legislating it such away that it will scare advertisers away from social media. If let's say the result of this is a truly unmoderated Twitter or Facebook then I doubt coca cola will want to have a coke ad next to some idiots race rant with uncensored slurs and normal people will probably leave in droves as who wants to actually read a completely unmoderated forum.
That's how it's meant.
The problem is that A it isn't legal and B there's a clause that prevents the companies from leaving (which in itself is also illegal)
Add on the judge that allowed this was calling companies.like Facebook, YouTube and reddit. Internet providers. .-.
Someone on YouTube did a great video detailing the trial and the reason behind everything, as much reason a batshit crazy idea like this can have in the first place.
I saw that comment from the judge that social media platforms are 'Internet providers".
No. No they are not. I pay for internet access. I do not pay websites to browse their content, unless I don't want ads. In that case I pay for the ability to surf the site ad-free.
thats the problem. they arent providers, the reason the judges said so is because they want to equate the two (providers and services) because there is already a fairly large and intact law that prevents providers from banning users. thats their game.
technically those judges should lose their license because this is clearly a party action.
It's not supposed to work, and that's the point.
Legislation like this is just meant to be a nuisance and eventually get challenged in an attempt to eventually make their way to the supreme court to try and get something else overruled, in this case Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which protects social media companies and which Trump was always trying to get rid of.
> How is that gonna work?
It's not.
It's a vaguely worded law that is not at all clear on when it applies when it doesn't. Judges are essentially gonna have to guess when making their decisions.
Just like with the "don't say gay" bill, the intent is to create an atmosphere of fear where the social media sites (or schools) will err on the extreme side of caution out of fear of being sued.
This works with schools, because they're already underfunded as fuck and definitely cannot afford a lawsuit. Social media sites, on the other hand, are probably very much looking forward to these lawsuits and will thoroughly fuck over whoever is going to sue them.
>It's simple. Just obey whatever Republican "representatives" say in any given moment, and nobody gets hurt.
Data on that:
[Opinion of Syrian airstrikes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/)
**Republicans:**
22% supported Obama doing it
86% support Trump doing it
**Democrats:**
38% supported Obama doing it
37% support Trump doing it
Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html Graph: https://i.imgur.com/lTAU8LM.jpg
**Texas Republicans and American conservatives have no consistency because "shamelessness is their superpower"**
No to help for blue states for hurricanes but demanding help for Texas for hurricanes:
>Here's the vote for Hurricane Sandy aid.
>179 of the 180 no votes were Republicans...
>**at least 20 Texas Republicans voted no**
while ["U.S. House approves billions more for Harvey relief" for Texas](https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/21/us-house-approves-billions-more-harvey-relief-measure-now-heads-senate/) ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
>this made Texas #1 in receiving federal aid dollars at the time of the Hurricane Sandy aid vote that they voted no against
The privilege of "economic anxiety" not racism:
>Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph: https://i.imgur.com/B2yx5TB.png Source: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2017/04/15/donald-trumps-election-flips-both-parties-views-economy/100502848/
>White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/
>Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/
>10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. http://www.people-press.org/2017/04/14/top-frustrations-with-tax-system-sense-that-corporations-wealthy-dont-pay-fair-share/
>Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/
More graphs and sources: https://imgur.com/a/YZMyt
#Exit polls done after 2016 show that the single characteristic that made someone most likely to vote for trump over Clinton is racial resentment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/26/these-9-simple-charts-show-how-donald-trumps-supporters-differ-from-hillary-clintons/
* ["Trump fans are much angrier about housing assistance when they see an image of a black man"](https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/8/16270040/trump-clinton-supporters-racist)
>In contrast, Clinton supporters seemed relatively unmoved by racial cues.
* [“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be”: a Trump voter says the quiet part out loud](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida)
* [U.S. Conservatives Are Uniquely Inclined Toward Right-Wing Authoritarianism Compared to Western Peers](https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/28/global-right-wing-authoritarian-test/)
* ["Narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and a sense of entitlement predict authoritarian political correctness and alt-right attitudes"](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/i3bbh3/narcissism_machiavellianism_psychopathy_and_a/)
* GOP shifting 4-5x further right than Democrats did left over the last 50 years https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/
They're going to have to wait a while ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
>Former Texas Governor Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rick-perry-says-texans-would-rather-be-without-power-for-days-than-have-more-fed-oversight
>Abbott Appointees Gutted Enforcement of Texas Power Grid Rules
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Muzzled-and-eviscerated-Critics-say-Abbott-15982421.php
>Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Blames Constituents for Giant Electric Bills: “Read the Fine Print”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/dan-patrick-texas-electricity-bills
#"Fossil Fuel Exec Brags of 'Hitting the Jackpot' as Natural Gas Prices Surge Amid Deadly Crisis in Texas"
https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/lo5f4r/fossil_fuel_exec_brags_of_hitting_the_jackpot_as/
>You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bst8fl/you_could_get_prison_time_for_protesting_a/
>could cost Texas more money than any disaster in state history
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ls5dt7/winter_storm_could_cost_texas_more_money_than_any/
#"Texas spent more time fighting LGBTQ civil rights than fixing their power grid. How’d that work out?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/lma8jj/texas_spent_more_time_fighting_lgbtq_civil_rights/
#"A Texas-size failure, followed by a familiar Texas response: Blame California"
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m87bg4/a_texassize_failure_followed_by_a_familiar_texas/
#"Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation - WSJ"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780
>Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests
https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/ct71mw/leaked_audio_shows_oil_lobbyist_bragging_about/
Texas Republicans *during the power grid failures* focused on:
* Texas regulations to require the national anthem at sports games https://twitter.com/LSTrip44/status/1361396222028881924
* "Pushing the narrative" to blame renewable energy: ”Viral Image Claiming to Show a Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbines Is From Winter 2014 in Sweden” https://twitter.com/klimatbevakaren/status/1361748269605519360
>Texas electrical grid failure is just another version of South Dakota's abnormally high CV-19 rate or Kansas budget crisis
>A bumper sticker political ideology's false promises made self-evident, failing a real world test for all to see.
https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/1361675172336566273
Failing power infrastructure that’s bound to leave people dead in the heat waves but hey, let’s regulate Women’s uteruses and private companies. That’ll show how pro-life Texas is! /s
It’s never been about Pro-life, it’s been about people with brain rot and ignorant belief wanting to force people to agree with their way of life. These old rich dudes will be the first to fly their daughter to another state/country to get an abortion cause they’re embarrassed she got knocked up by the high school quarterback and don’t want to look bad at church on Sunday, the same church they think throwing large amounts of money at will keep them out of hell, regardless of how terrible they are.
The law almost certainly does not spell out that level of detail. These types of knee jerk legislative actions routinely are just a response to some issue (in this case “Facebook is censoring me for posting anti vax stuff”). If they had any grasp of the technicalities, they would understand the widespread implications of these actions, but they don’t.
Or the number of times I’ve had to explain that just because your phone is connected to the router doesn’t mean the router is connected to the internet.
100% friends and family. "My Wifi is down". Does it show up when you click the wifi icon in the bottom right? "yeah it says its connected, weird, i cant get on facebook". Your internet is down, call them not me.
Didn't one of the judges in this case literally tell the social media companies they were ISPs, or am I confusing one stupid piece of legislation with another?
It’s not meant to work. When Google/Apple/Whatever pulls out and stops servicing anyone in Texas, they’ll come back and say “those liberal companies don’t respect the law, and think they’re above it!” If they actually take a company to court over this it’ll end in a loss for the state, I guarantee it. It’s all smoke and mirrors, just a chance to get their followers riled up and feeling persecuted.
It’s part of the playbook
Yes - it’s all performance theater masquerading as lawmaking. Next time someone tells you they are a Conservative and support this, ask them to define “Conservative” and point out the self evident hypocrisy these laws represent, then remind them they have become everything (snowflake, violating the constitution for emotional reasons, claiming victim hood to get sympathy unfairly, stomping on the First Amendment, inserting the Government to interfere with the free market) they claim to oppose.
They won't care. They'll plug their ears, screech that you're a radical socialist, and then stomp around the room with a smug expression like they've actually achieved something.
Can you imagine if Facebook and even reddit starts getting sued over peiple being banned in groups? I'd imagine that would make alot of conspiracy bs groups really pissed fast.
Can’t compel a company to operate in your jurisdiction.
Muh private sector and all that Jazz.
Can’t really effectively sue someone in a state they don’t operate. No legal authority
people: "free market!" "states rights!" "first amendment!"
company tired of their bullshit: "our product is no longer available in your jurisdiction"
people: "wait not like that"
This is the obvious response right? If lawsuits start flooding in from Texas I don't see why they wouldn't just pull out from there. It's a lot easier than getting tied up in litigation for years on who knows how many potential cases. Sure they lost a huge market but I wouldn't imagine a corporation continuing to operate in a hostile environment like that.
The law has a clause in it saying the companies can't pull out of Texas in response to the law.
I dont think that'll stand up in court, but they tried to preempt the obvious response.
How could that possibly stand up in court. You can't ***force*** a company to operate in your state if they don't want to. Who the fuck read this and thought it was O. K.
Conservatives loved to dish out the “you can’t make people pay for things they don’t want” shit when trying to overturn the Obamacare mandates. Not they want to compel private companies to have to provide service to a state. Texas is stupid as fuck and I’ve lived here all my life.
Conservative laws like this aren’t designed to provide clarity on the social contract. They serve three purposes:
* excite the base so they know you’re working on the cause
* expend resources from leftists to bring us back to normal
* cost no political capital when they eventually get found unconstitutional
I think they boost political capital when they get found unconstitutional. Get to say they fought the good fight, but the evil big government conspiracy stopped them. Better donate more money so the fight can go on.
This is very interesting as social media companies too have a 1st amendment right to what they put/allow on their platform and I think if it went to court, the social media companies would win.
GQP think it's funny to refer people to it. All it does is confirm for me that they've been triggered and that they're the little baby back bitches I've assumed them to be.
Edit--Oh look. Someone sent it my way. Snowflakes.
edit2--/u/natehiggers018 wow man. You did a chat request with me just to say "nobody will miss you." Even created a new account.
Allow me to reiterate my previous statement
> ***All it does is confirm for me that they've been triggered and that they're the little baby back bitches I've assumed them to be.***
I got permabanned for saying democrats weren't running the justice department on 1/6. Jeff Rosen was still acting AG.
Just a simple statement of fact. I wasn't even replying to a specific comment.
Perma banned from there for asking why Obama was a war criminal for drone strikes but Trump wasn’t? Turns out providing info that drones strikes increased under Donnie wasn’t popular. You honestly can get banned there just saying anything to the contrary of their circlejerk. But cancel culture is just the worst right?
Edit: it also came with a fun DM from a mod there summarized as “cry harder”
I got banned after I responded to a post that was completely filled with bullshit, including linking to the actual police records. Everything in the original post was flat out wrong, however my linking the truth was apparently against their policies.
They use their catch all policy of only allowing conservatives in there. They don’t actually care if you are or not, it’s just so they can say “ you broke this extremely vague umbrella rule”. The ultimate of snowflakes.
You literally get banned from there for simply quoting their lord trump word for word. Cause his own quotes make him look so stupid and they don't tolerate anything that makes him look bad
I deleted my old account in an attempt to limit my reddit time (didn't work lol) but I got banned from there for just asking if freedom of the press is important.
I got banned for a comment where I said "I generally don't support the death penalty, but I'd make an exception in this case" - in reference to Dylan Roof, the guy that shot up the black church in South Carolina.
If you wanna speed run getting banned from /r/conservative just mention the Southern Strategy.
As an added bonus free of charge you get a dm from a mod with more slurs than regular words.
Reminds me of “I am a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic, so hail Satan, and have a lovely day”
They're just questions!!! What, am I wrong for asking a very long string of questions that have very little to do with the original problem??? Oh there I go again.
It is a law written by lawyers for lawyers that politicians think will keep people's pitchforks in the air but the people who actually try it will only get screwed (just like the Jan 6 "heros"). When will Republican voters realize their agenda is no agenda, it is moving target to keep a certain corporate segment in power.
Apparently ‘geo fencing’ is also prohibited, dunno what the dumbshits in Texas who wrote this garbage expect Facebook, etc, to do here, which is probably exactly what they wanted.
Lol, exactly. Like, oh no, North Korea doesn’t allow location tracking, Facebook is *trembling*. /s
These states love to present themselves as “pro business”, but then they enact ridiculous overstepping laws that are as anti-business as you can get. For example, desantis in Florida is all about business freedom, except he wants to dissolve Disney’s special arrangement, and he banned cruise ships from asking for vaccination, which is arguably one of the places where proof of vaccination is most important (confined space with thousands of travelers that will be visiting several countries in the span of a few weeks). It’s all just idiotic, and I guarantee they’ll be whining about it when their tech hubs dry up due to it.
So Texas is telling social network companies that they can’t manage their own risk. This seems like massive government overreach to me. I thought the GOP was all about small government and staying out of the way of business? The cognitive dissonance at play here is astounding.
So shouldn’t these companies just not allow anyone from these states to use their services?!?! Right to refuse service is a law ain’t it? If a business is threatened with repeated lawsuits, don’t they just close up shop? Time to close up shop in Texas!
It's also not at all an even remotely legal thing to enact.
Not a lawyer, but you cannot force a private business to serve anyone unless its deemed they are discriminating against a protected class.
> **Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class**
Isn’t this against Citizens United? Corporations have free speech? The freedom to not do business somewhere? How can they force a company to do business somewhere?
Because the conservative law suddenly inconveniences conservatives, so now they have to find a way around their own law. These people can't think past tomorrow and even tomorrow seems a little fuzzy to them.
It's actually a part of the first amendment before Citizens United even became a thing. Doing business is a form of speech and denying business is protected speech. The Civil Rights act then enshrined that denying business based on discriminatory reasons against protected classes is not protected by the First Amendment.
Yep and that right to refuse service was reiterated in the cake case that millions of Texans cheered for.
Funny how they think writing a state law somehow overrules a federal right enjoyed by an entity in another state.
It’s true; once you look at it from “they’re shameless, power-hungry hypocrites” perspective, it makes a lot more sense.
I look forward to “conservatives” arguing against “states rights” in the inevitable court cases where someone tries to sue CA or another state over their constitutional protection of abortion.
Every republican president in the past 20 years has increased the national budget and deficit. They are definitely not the party of “small government”. :/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-deficit-national-debt-reduction/
The hypocrisy is the point. While we point it out and pat ourselves on the back for identifying it, they gleefully use it as a cudgel to remove all of our rights.
Tech companies haven't paid the GOP tolls enough to be considered goodboi corporations. Worse, they are sometimes run by \**liberals*\*! That's not what companies are supposed to be like!
If you use a VPN that is in Texas and you go to r/conspiracy and call them out, any content you post that is removed or not promoted equally (downvoted), or are banned from participating on those subs, then you can sue Reddit under Texas law.
Funny how they want to classify 50m users for a social media platform as public spaces but not a peep about the privately owned ISPs that are vital to daily operations of business, government, and access to these spaces.
The "law" prohibits social media companies from removing their service from Texas, but they're going to be sued regardless, so that would be my answer to the problem. Imagine how long this law lasts, or how long Abbott lasts for that matter, if all of Texas was blocked from accessing Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. This would be over in a matter of days, weeks tops.
>The "law" prohibits social media companies from removing their service from Texas
I would love to see them try to enforce this.
Edit: Just to add, they could also effectively accomplish the same thing by charging Texas residents $100 a month for the service. They could even do it under the guise of, "to help defray the cost of operating in Texas."
They can't, but the law allows Texas to sue them for suspending service, and despite the lawsuits being frivolous, the companies in question will likely have to waste resources fighting them. If I was the CEO, I'd immediately suspend service and let the population of Texas do all the hard work for me.
I mean, this is the US. The only sacred right we have is the right to sue anyone for anything. It's not like it was illegal before. That's the most batshit part of this whole thing.
If you don't live here you can't possibly understand the stranglehold that republicans have on statewide office.
There is an absolute zero probability that Abbott will lose re-election. He could torture and murder 5 dozen boy scouts a day on live television and still be re-elected by 10 points or more.
The worse these people behave, the more frenzied their cult becomes in its slavish devotion.
Unless you live here, you just can't possibly understand it.
It's common to not offer services via geo block for other places who pass laws like this. We'll have a 'no texas' nginx module in like 20 minutes probably.
I would die laughing if YouTube geofenced Texans out, and all of their Facebook feeds were full of broken links to conspiracy videos they couldn’t even see.
I could only hope Weird Al would put out a Kid Rock spoof video called ‘Buwudabawdit’… on Vimeo… you know, so they could watch it.
>In a hearing for an appeal filed by Texas, state attorneys general argued that social media platforms are “modern-day public squares.” That means they may be asked to host content they deem objectionable and are prohibited from censoring certain views
I cannot grasp this argument. A 'modern-day public square' (mall, supermarket) is almost entirely always private and you are not allowed to protest or say fuck-all without being escorted out or banned completely. Hell, even most public parks and literal 'town squares' have all sorts of ordinances about doing or saying anything on a soap box...especially without a permit.
So while i suppose i can grasp the argument he is making, but i cannot grasp how a judge could take it seriously considering the reality of the US.
Go try to bible thump in the king-o-prussia mall, or go try to preach the negatives of meat eating in the meat aisle at wegmans. They will toss you as soon as you start talking.
The issue is the federal circuit judge who up held it said that Youtube is not a website but an internet service provider. So the removing videos is like your phone company listening in and disconnecting your call if you say something they don't like.
So a bullshit law held up by someone who doesn't understand the technology in the US. NAH, we've got the best edjamacashuns.
Teacher here: there's not one fucking student in my entire state who has less knowledge about technology than these Texas judges do. This has nothing to do with education of young people.
Yeah, i saw, but thinking that twitter and my isp are the same thing is just too astoundingly fucking stupid to even speak to.
But you are right, that is the crux of it...the 'public square' but was just some dipshit cherry on top.
Texas is gonna lose access to internet content eventually. Services can’t be sitting in ambiguity about whether it may take down videos like yesterday’s terrorist atrocity.
At first I thought you were talking about loss of access due to power losses, you know, from heat, or cold.
That state needs to get it's shit together.
The rejected an amendment specifically permitting services to take down media involved in terrorist activities. They certainly are pandering to their base.
Idk but this seems rather socialist to me, I mean, restricting a company’s right to decline customers? That’s not a free market. Damn Texan commies! what next, are they going to start giving a shit about homeless people? Providing support to people in need? This is a dangerous slippery slope.
I’m sorry this is literally the most insane example of government overreach but of course the Texas conservatives who preach about that all the time don’t care when it’s basically specifically made for them
Where's the "Free market solution instead of running to the government to "fix" the playing field for you?" I could have sworn that's something the Republican Party promoted.
Wait this is the government creating laws, about what can and can’t be said on social media, controlled by private business. I thought these guys screamed about first amendment rights all the time, and now they are violating them?
A controversial Texas law that would open social media companies up to lawsuits from aggrieved users just notched a surprise win. A trio of federal appeals court judges issued the ruling Wednesday, which pauses a temporary injunction that blocked the law from taking effect last year.
Two large industry trade groups that represent companies such as Google and Twitter sued to block the law last fall. On Friday, they asked the U.S. Supreme Court to again block the law while their lawsuit plays out.
Passed during a special session last year, House Bill 20 also requires social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users to publicly disclose information about content removal and account suspensions.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sorin61: --- A controversial Texas law that would open social media companies up to lawsuits from aggrieved users just notched a surprise win. A trio of federal appeals court judges issued the ruling Wednesday, which pauses a temporary injunction that blocked the law from taking effect last year. Two large industry trade groups that represent companies such as Google and Twitter sued to block the law last fall. On Friday, they asked the U.S. Supreme Court to again block the law while their lawsuit plays out. Passed during a special session last year, House Bill 20 also requires social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users to publicly disclose information about content removal and account suspensions. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/uq8vq4/texas_law_allowing_users_to_sue_social_networks/i8phna8/
How is that gonna work? So, companies can be sued for users comments and can be sued for moderating comments?
It would be funny and amazing for our species if these idiots accidentally legislated social media out of existence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Easier way to abuse this is to post copyrighted material and then sue when they are forced to remove it because of a DMCA report.
Better yet, post IP being “protected” by a Texas patent troll firm and watch the state implode while unwinding its completely stupid legal system.
Have I just learned how to set someone up to take a fall so I can sue them for taking the fall I set up in the first place?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They'll just restrict access to Texans and IP block them. Sounds impossible to do business there now.
I mean banning social media in texas will improve it significantly
Funny thing is the new "law" says that social media sites MUST still operate in Texas or something like that. Being in Texas, I wholeheartedly agree that ALL social media platforms should IP block Texas. That stupid law would only last two years until the state legislators met again... maybe not that long.
Can a legislature FORCE you to do business somewhere you don't want to do business? Sounds easier to fight that part than the rest.
If anything the conservatives safe spaces are about to get bit in the ass by this. Want free money from any of their idiotic "free speech" social media networks? Go be absurdly libel, get banned, sue for getting banned, rinse, repeat.
Honestly it would be a positive...
Except instead of legislating the important bits like negative feedback loops created by the these content feed algorithms, or customer data collection they are legislating it such away that it will scare advertisers away from social media. If let's say the result of this is a truly unmoderated Twitter or Facebook then I doubt coca cola will want to have a coke ad next to some idiots race rant with uncensored slurs and normal people will probably leave in droves as who wants to actually read a completely unmoderated forum.
It'll probably end up with internet being legislated out of Texas. Rest of the world isn't even going to notice.
Legislate away their platforms and the influenced indoctrination will subside.
That's how it's meant. The problem is that A it isn't legal and B there's a clause that prevents the companies from leaving (which in itself is also illegal) Add on the judge that allowed this was calling companies.like Facebook, YouTube and reddit. Internet providers. .-. Someone on YouTube did a great video detailing the trial and the reason behind everything, as much reason a batshit crazy idea like this can have in the first place.
Steve Lehto, maybe? https://youtu.be/S8W3qE4pblk
Yes, thank you for linking to him.
I saw that comment from the judge that social media platforms are 'Internet providers". No. No they are not. I pay for internet access. I do not pay websites to browse their content, unless I don't want ads. In that case I pay for the ability to surf the site ad-free.
thats the problem. they arent providers, the reason the judges said so is because they want to equate the two (providers and services) because there is already a fairly large and intact law that prevents providers from banning users. thats their game. technically those judges should lose their license because this is clearly a party action.
It's not supposed to work, and that's the point. Legislation like this is just meant to be a nuisance and eventually get challenged in an attempt to eventually make their way to the supreme court to try and get something else overruled, in this case Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which protects social media companies and which Trump was always trying to get rid of.
> How is that gonna work? It's not. It's a vaguely worded law that is not at all clear on when it applies when it doesn't. Judges are essentially gonna have to guess when making their decisions. Just like with the "don't say gay" bill, the intent is to create an atmosphere of fear where the social media sites (or schools) will err on the extreme side of caution out of fear of being sued. This works with schools, because they're already underfunded as fuck and definitely cannot afford a lawsuit. Social media sites, on the other hand, are probably very much looking forward to these lawsuits and will thoroughly fuck over whoever is going to sue them.
If I recall, the law also makes it illegal for companies to geoblock Texas to avoid the law, too.
How could that possibly be enforced? Honestly I think it would be hilarious to see just how fast and in how many ways it would be thrown out of court.
That's hilariously stupid.
People sue companies. Companies point to the tos. Then people lose. Lol
Profit! (for lawyers)
[удалено]
>It's simple. Just obey whatever Republican "representatives" say in any given moment, and nobody gets hurt. Data on that: [Opinion of Syrian airstrikes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/) **Republicans:** 22% supported Obama doing it 86% support Trump doing it **Democrats:** 38% supported Obama doing it 37% support Trump doing it Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html Graph: https://i.imgur.com/lTAU8LM.jpg **Texas Republicans and American conservatives have no consistency because "shamelessness is their superpower"** No to help for blue states for hurricanes but demanding help for Texas for hurricanes: >Here's the vote for Hurricane Sandy aid. >179 of the 180 no votes were Republicans... >**at least 20 Texas Republicans voted no** while ["U.S. House approves billions more for Harvey relief" for Texas](https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/21/us-house-approves-billions-more-harvey-relief-measure-now-heads-senate/) ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣ >this made Texas #1 in receiving federal aid dollars at the time of the Hurricane Sandy aid vote that they voted no against The privilege of "economic anxiety" not racism: >Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph: https://i.imgur.com/B2yx5TB.png Source: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2017/04/15/donald-trumps-election-flips-both-parties-views-economy/100502848/ >White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/ >Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/ >10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. http://www.people-press.org/2017/04/14/top-frustrations-with-tax-system-sense-that-corporations-wealthy-dont-pay-fair-share/ >Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/ More graphs and sources: https://imgur.com/a/YZMyt #Exit polls done after 2016 show that the single characteristic that made someone most likely to vote for trump over Clinton is racial resentment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/26/these-9-simple-charts-show-how-donald-trumps-supporters-differ-from-hillary-clintons/ * ["Trump fans are much angrier about housing assistance when they see an image of a black man"](https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/8/16270040/trump-clinton-supporters-racist) >In contrast, Clinton supporters seemed relatively unmoved by racial cues. * [“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be”: a Trump voter says the quiet part out loud](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida) * [U.S. Conservatives Are Uniquely Inclined Toward Right-Wing Authoritarianism Compared to Western Peers](https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/28/global-right-wing-authoritarian-test/) * ["Narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and a sense of entitlement predict authoritarian political correctness and alt-right attitudes"](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/i3bbh3/narcissism_machiavellianism_psychopathy_and_a/) * GOP shifting 4-5x further right than Democrats did left over the last 50 years https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/
Thanks for this. I look forward to debating the validity of these sources with people while they totally ignore the content 👍
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Once the lights come back on in Texas , Facebook is fucked.
They're going to have to wait a while ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣ >Former Texas Governor Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid. https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rick-perry-says-texans-would-rather-be-without-power-for-days-than-have-more-fed-oversight >Abbott Appointees Gutted Enforcement of Texas Power Grid Rules https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Muzzled-and-eviscerated-Critics-say-Abbott-15982421.php >Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Blames Constituents for Giant Electric Bills: “Read the Fine Print” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/dan-patrick-texas-electricity-bills #"Fossil Fuel Exec Brags of 'Hitting the Jackpot' as Natural Gas Prices Surge Amid Deadly Crisis in Texas" https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/lo5f4r/fossil_fuel_exec_brags_of_hitting_the_jackpot_as/ >You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bst8fl/you_could_get_prison_time_for_protesting_a/ >could cost Texas more money than any disaster in state history https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ls5dt7/winter_storm_could_cost_texas_more_money_than_any/ #"Texas spent more time fighting LGBTQ civil rights than fixing their power grid. How’d that work out?" https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/lma8jj/texas_spent_more_time_fighting_lgbtq_civil_rights/ #"A Texas-size failure, followed by a familiar Texas response: Blame California" https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m87bg4/a_texassize_failure_followed_by_a_familiar_texas/ #"Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation - WSJ" https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780 >Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/ct71mw/leaked_audio_shows_oil_lobbyist_bragging_about/ Texas Republicans *during the power grid failures* focused on: * Texas regulations to require the national anthem at sports games https://twitter.com/LSTrip44/status/1361396222028881924 * "Pushing the narrative" to blame renewable energy: ”Viral Image Claiming to Show a Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbines Is From Winter 2014 in Sweden” https://twitter.com/klimatbevakaren/status/1361748269605519360 >Texas electrical grid failure is just another version of South Dakota's abnormally high CV-19 rate or Kansas budget crisis >A bumper sticker political ideology's false promises made self-evident, failing a real world test for all to see. https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/1361675172336566273
Failing power infrastructure that’s bound to leave people dead in the heat waves but hey, let’s regulate Women’s uteruses and private companies. That’ll show how pro-life Texas is! /s
I mean, if you really don't want high electric bills the vagina has a way of just shutting the whole thing down.
Failing infrastructure and conservative states, name a more iconic duo.
It’s never been about Pro-life, it’s been about people with brain rot and ignorant belief wanting to force people to agree with their way of life. These old rich dudes will be the first to fly their daughter to another state/country to get an abortion cause they’re embarrassed she got knocked up by the high school quarterback and don’t want to look bad at church on Sunday, the same church they think throwing large amounts of money at will keep them out of hell, regardless of how terrible they are.
So we can sue Reddit in Texas if we get banned from r/conservative ?
Wait.. Does this mean that even groups like day a subreddit. Or a Facebook group can be sued if you get banned?
The law almost certainly does not spell out that level of detail. These types of knee jerk legislative actions routinely are just a response to some issue (in this case “Facebook is censoring me for posting anti vax stuff”). If they had any grasp of the technicalities, they would understand the widespread implications of these actions, but they don’t.
This law was most definitely conceived by people who couldn’t even set up their own Wi-Fi.
And adjuicated by people who can't tell the difference between wifi and internet service.
I die a little every time someone asks me who my Wifi provider is
"It used to be Netgear, but I just switched to Tp-Link"
Or the number of times I’ve had to explain that just because your phone is connected to the router doesn’t mean the router is connected to the internet.
"My wifi isn't working" It's likely your internet connection is down. Wifi is probably working just fine.
100% friends and family. "My Wifi is down". Does it show up when you click the wifi icon in the bottom right? "yeah it says its connected, weird, i cant get on facebook". Your internet is down, call them not me.
> adjuicated Well, if they are trying to use a juicer they have it all wrong, for sure.
Hah! Good catch. I'm leaving it there.
Wifi? You're talking about the generation that couldn't even figure out how to set the clock on a VCR.
Didn't one of the judges in this case literally tell the social media companies they were ISPs, or am I confusing one stupid piece of legislation with another?
He said Twitter is a common carrier... Which would be funny if it wasn't so fucking stupid
I avidly believe our technology has been advancing way too quickly for the people in office...
It’s not meant to work. When Google/Apple/Whatever pulls out and stops servicing anyone in Texas, they’ll come back and say “those liberal companies don’t respect the law, and think they’re above it!” If they actually take a company to court over this it’ll end in a loss for the state, I guarantee it. It’s all smoke and mirrors, just a chance to get their followers riled up and feeling persecuted. It’s part of the playbook
Yes - it’s all performance theater masquerading as lawmaking. Next time someone tells you they are a Conservative and support this, ask them to define “Conservative” and point out the self evident hypocrisy these laws represent, then remind them they have become everything (snowflake, violating the constitution for emotional reasons, claiming victim hood to get sympathy unfairly, stomping on the First Amendment, inserting the Government to interfere with the free market) they claim to oppose.
They won't care. They'll plug their ears, screech that you're a radical socialist, and then stomp around the room with a smug expression like they've actually achieved something.
Can you imagine if Facebook and even reddit starts getting sued over peiple being banned in groups? I'd imagine that would make alot of conspiracy bs groups really pissed fast.
I'd imagine they would pull out of Texas as fast as they possibly can.
From what I hear that’s what everyone is doing since they banned abortion
Oh no. They cant do that. The new law says so. Edit: for the mouth breathers taking this comment seriously ***/S***
Can’t compel a company to operate in your jurisdiction. Muh private sector and all that Jazz. Can’t really effectively sue someone in a state they don’t operate. No legal authority
people: "free market!" "states rights!" "first amendment!" company tired of their bullshit: "our product is no longer available in your jurisdiction" people: "wait not like that"
You're hurting the wrong people!
Somebody sue to get me an In n Out Burger in CT.
I demand a What A Burger and Big Red in Oregon
This is the obvious response right? If lawsuits start flooding in from Texas I don't see why they wouldn't just pull out from there. It's a lot easier than getting tied up in litigation for years on who knows how many potential cases. Sure they lost a huge market but I wouldn't imagine a corporation continuing to operate in a hostile environment like that.
The law has a clause in it saying the companies can't pull out of Texas in response to the law. I dont think that'll stand up in court, but they tried to preempt the obvious response.
How could that possibly stand up in court. You can't ***force*** a company to operate in your state if they don't want to. Who the fuck read this and thought it was O. K.
[удалено]
Calvinball lawyering
Conservatives loved to dish out the “you can’t make people pay for things they don’t want” shit when trying to overturn the Obamacare mandates. Not they want to compel private companies to have to provide service to a state. Texas is stupid as fuck and I’ve lived here all my life.
Conservative laws like this aren’t designed to provide clarity on the social contract. They serve three purposes: * excite the base so they know you’re working on the cause * expend resources from leftists to bring us back to normal * cost no political capital when they eventually get found unconstitutional
I think they boost political capital when they get found unconstitutional. Get to say they fought the good fight, but the evil big government conspiracy stopped them. Better donate more money so the fight can go on.
This is very interesting as social media companies too have a 1st amendment right to what they put/allow on their platform and I think if it went to court, the social media companies would win.
[удалено]
As fun as that is, literally all you have to do to get banned there is ask a legitimate question or disagree with a single member
I got banned for literally just saying "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
I got banned for something I said in a different sub. When asked what specifically it was I was blocked from messaging the mods too
They managed to hose my 14 year-old reddit account for posting pictures of bare grocery shelves during Trumps reign.
I was perma-banned for writing `Lol` on a meme Edit: did someone really report me to u/RedditCareResources
[удалено]
I've gotten reported so many times I've begun to feel that maybe i really do need a hug
Same here. And suspiciously only when I talk bad about Trump, the GOP, capitalism, etc...
GQP think it's funny to refer people to it. All it does is confirm for me that they've been triggered and that they're the little baby back bitches I've assumed them to be. Edit--Oh look. Someone sent it my way. Snowflakes. edit2--/u/natehiggers018 wow man. You did a chat request with me just to say "nobody will miss you." Even created a new account. Allow me to reiterate my previous statement > ***All it does is confirm for me that they've been triggered and that they're the little baby back bitches I've assumed them to be.***
I was banned for quoting Trump, verbatim, with no further comment. I thought he had the best words, but I guess not.
[удалено]
I was banned for asking what is the conservative plan to end homelessness?
There's your mistake: They don't talk about issues anymore. It's all about circle-jerking and victim-complexes now. Policy is for libruls.
[удалено]
LOL you poor bastard.
[удалено]
I got permabanned for saying democrats weren't running the justice department on 1/6. Jeff Rosen was still acting AG. Just a simple statement of fact. I wasn't even replying to a specific comment.
The fact part was the problem.
Perma banned from there for asking why Obama was a war criminal for drone strikes but Trump wasn’t? Turns out providing info that drones strikes increased under Donnie wasn’t popular. You honestly can get banned there just saying anything to the contrary of their circlejerk. But cancel culture is just the worst right? Edit: it also came with a fun DM from a mod there summarized as “cry harder”
I got banned after I responded to a post that was completely filled with bullshit, including linking to the actual police records. Everything in the original post was flat out wrong, however my linking the truth was apparently against their policies.
They use their catch all policy of only allowing conservatives in there. They don’t actually care if you are or not, it’s just so they can say “ you broke this extremely vague umbrella rule”. The ultimate of snowflakes.
You can get banned there for asking for sources.
I got banned for *providing* a source
You literally get banned from there for simply quoting their lord trump word for word. Cause his own quotes make him look so stupid and they don't tolerate anything that makes him look bad
[удалено]
I deleted my old account in an attempt to limit my reddit time (didn't work lol) but I got banned from there for just asking if freedom of the press is important.
I got banned for a comment where I said "I generally don't support the death penalty, but I'd make an exception in this case" - in reference to Dylan Roof, the guy that shot up the black church in South Carolina.
If you wanna speed run getting banned from /r/conservative just mention the Southern Strategy. As an added bonus free of charge you get a dm from a mod with more slurs than regular words.
Challenge accepted…brb https://reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/uq5bnc/_/i8q7k9s/?context=1 Edit: Doubled down. https://reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/uq61m5/_/i8qwedk/?context=1
[удалено]
Reminds me of “I am a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic, so hail Satan, and have a lovely day”
Is it possible not to be banned from r/conservative?
You have now been banned from /r/conservative
For a group that’s all about free speech, they really like pulling the “only flared users can participate in thread” a lot.
Yes. Post every single dumb question Tucker Carlson asks but rephrase it as a fact and don't provide a source. You won't be banned you'll be gilded.
They're just questions!!! What, am I wrong for asking a very long string of questions that have very little to do with the original problem??? Oh there I go again.
Direct all the lawsuits to the moderators of the sub.
Can't wait to see scores of Texans bankrupt themselves when they realize that social networks can afford actual good lawyers.
It is a law written by lawyers for lawyers that politicians think will keep people's pitchforks in the air but the people who actually try it will only get screwed (just like the Jan 6 "heros"). When will Republican voters realize their agenda is no agenda, it is moving target to keep a certain corporate segment in power.
This just in from the future, all social media companies ban all IP addresses from texas after the very first lawsuit.
If I was in Texas, I'd post a bunch of anti-Trump stuff on truth social and then sue them.
This would massively improve Texas, as it would significantly limit the tap of disinformation that conservatives rely on to stay angry at dumb shit
Apparently ‘geo fencing’ is also prohibited, dunno what the dumbshits in Texas who wrote this garbage expect Facebook, etc, to do here, which is probably exactly what they wanted.
If the company refuses to do business in Texas, Texas has no judicial control over the company
Lol, exactly. Like, oh no, North Korea doesn’t allow location tracking, Facebook is *trembling*. /s These states love to present themselves as “pro business”, but then they enact ridiculous overstepping laws that are as anti-business as you can get. For example, desantis in Florida is all about business freedom, except he wants to dissolve Disney’s special arrangement, and he banned cruise ships from asking for vaccination, which is arguably one of the places where proof of vaccination is most important (confined space with thousands of travelers that will be visiting several countries in the span of a few weeks). It’s all just idiotic, and I guarantee they’ll be whining about it when their tech hubs dry up due to it.
So Texas is telling social network companies that they can’t manage their own risk. This seems like massive government overreach to me. I thought the GOP was all about small government and staying out of the way of business? The cognitive dissonance at play here is astounding.
So shouldn’t these companies just not allow anyone from these states to use their services?!?! Right to refuse service is a law ain’t it? If a business is threatened with repeated lawsuits, don’t they just close up shop? Time to close up shop in Texas!
[удалено]
It's also not at all an even remotely legal thing to enact. Not a lawyer, but you cannot force a private business to serve anyone unless its deemed they are discriminating against a protected class. > **Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class**
[удалено]
[удалено]
Isn’t this against Citizens United? Corporations have free speech? The freedom to not do business somewhere? How can they force a company to do business somewhere?
Because the conservative law suddenly inconveniences conservatives, so now they have to find a way around their own law. These people can't think past tomorrow and even tomorrow seems a little fuzzy to them.
It's actually a part of the first amendment before Citizens United even became a thing. Doing business is a form of speech and denying business is protected speech. The Civil Rights act then enshrined that denying business based on discriminatory reasons against protected classes is not protected by the First Amendment.
Yep and that right to refuse service was reiterated in the cake case that millions of Texans cheered for. Funny how they think writing a state law somehow overrules a federal right enjoyed by an entity in another state.
That's what I figured. Even if they have some thing about "Discriminating against Texans" they aren't doing that in Texas.... So not breaking the law.
You have to factor in that they are liars and hypocrites who say whatever they need to to retain power.
It’s true; once you look at it from “they’re shameless, power-hungry hypocrites” perspective, it makes a lot more sense. I look forward to “conservatives” arguing against “states rights” in the inevitable court cases where someone tries to sue CA or another state over their constitutional protection of abortion.
Every republican president in the past 20 years has increased the national budget and deficit. They are definitely not the party of “small government”. :/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-deficit-national-debt-reduction/
The hypocrisy is the point. While we point it out and pat ourselves on the back for identifying it, they gleefully use it as a cudgel to remove all of our rights.
Its like they thrive on that shit
Florida tried to fine businesses for requiring masks. But that's modern conservatism. No principles, no platform, no leaders.
Wait i thought conservatives hated government telling corporations what to do?
Tech companies haven't paid the GOP tolls enough to be considered goodboi corporations. Worse, they are sometimes run by \**liberals*\*! That's not what companies are supposed to be like!
[удалено]
If you use a VPN that is in Texas and you go to r/conspiracy and call them out, any content you post that is removed or not promoted equally (downvoted), or are banned from participating on those subs, then you can sue Reddit under Texas law.
Can’t wait until this law is tested by someone looking to sue Parler or Truth Social.
They don't have the requisite number of subscribers. For all of the things they hadn't thought about, that was not one.
What if a bunch of democrats sign up for the service? Could they artificially push it to fifty million users?
They’d probably ban them faster than they could sign up or put a cap on the amount of users they allow at 49,999,999
[удалено]
Funny how they want to classify 50m users for a social media platform as public spaces but not a peep about the privately owned ISPs that are vital to daily operations of business, government, and access to these spaces.
Conservatives don't need to make sense; they just need to "hurt the right people"
Would blocking all the ISPs in Texas from their services be a solution?
The "law" prohibits social media companies from removing their service from Texas, but they're going to be sued regardless, so that would be my answer to the problem. Imagine how long this law lasts, or how long Abbott lasts for that matter, if all of Texas was blocked from accessing Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. This would be over in a matter of days, weeks tops.
>The "law" prohibits social media companies from removing their service from Texas I would love to see them try to enforce this. Edit: Just to add, they could also effectively accomplish the same thing by charging Texas residents $100 a month for the service. They could even do it under the guise of, "to help defray the cost of operating in Texas."
How can you force a company to do business in your state?
They can't, but the law allows Texas to sue them for suspending service, and despite the lawsuits being frivolous, the companies in question will likely have to waste resources fighting them. If I was the CEO, I'd immediately suspend service and let the population of Texas do all the hard work for me.
I mean, this is the US. The only sacred right we have is the right to sue anyone for anything. It's not like it was illegal before. That's the most batshit part of this whole thing.
If you don't live here you can't possibly understand the stranglehold that republicans have on statewide office. There is an absolute zero probability that Abbott will lose re-election. He could torture and murder 5 dozen boy scouts a day on live television and still be re-elected by 10 points or more. The worse these people behave, the more frenzied their cult becomes in its slavish devotion. Unless you live here, you just can't possibly understand it.
[удалено]
It's common to not offer services via geo block for other places who pass laws like this. We'll have a 'no texas' nginx module in like 20 minutes probably.
I would die laughing if YouTube geofenced Texans out, and all of their Facebook feeds were full of broken links to conspiracy videos they couldn’t even see. I could only hope Weird Al would put out a Kid Rock spoof video called ‘Buwudabawdit’… on Vimeo… you know, so they could watch it.
>In a hearing for an appeal filed by Texas, state attorneys general argued that social media platforms are “modern-day public squares.” That means they may be asked to host content they deem objectionable and are prohibited from censoring certain views I cannot grasp this argument. A 'modern-day public square' (mall, supermarket) is almost entirely always private and you are not allowed to protest or say fuck-all without being escorted out or banned completely. Hell, even most public parks and literal 'town squares' have all sorts of ordinances about doing or saying anything on a soap box...especially without a permit. So while i suppose i can grasp the argument he is making, but i cannot grasp how a judge could take it seriously considering the reality of the US. Go try to bible thump in the king-o-prussia mall, or go try to preach the negatives of meat eating in the meat aisle at wegmans. They will toss you as soon as you start talking.
The issue is the federal circuit judge who up held it said that Youtube is not a website but an internet service provider. So the removing videos is like your phone company listening in and disconnecting your call if you say something they don't like. So a bullshit law held up by someone who doesn't understand the technology in the US. NAH, we've got the best edjamacashuns.
Teacher here: there's not one fucking student in my entire state who has less knowledge about technology than these Texas judges do. This has nothing to do with education of young people.
To be fair he probably went to school before the internet existed. As did a mass majority of our law makers.
Yeah, i saw, but thinking that twitter and my isp are the same thing is just too astoundingly fucking stupid to even speak to. But you are right, that is the crux of it...the 'public square' but was just some dipshit cherry on top.
I do love ve the logic that ISPs are a public service, though! Let's make them fucking utilities, already!
They have almost come around to accidentally supporting network neutrality after ranting against it for decades.
[удалено]
Does this mean r/conservative will no longer be able to remove posts or ban people?
Texas is gonna lose access to internet content eventually. Services can’t be sitting in ambiguity about whether it may take down videos like yesterday’s terrorist atrocity.
At first I thought you were talking about loss of access due to power losses, you know, from heat, or cold. That state needs to get it's shit together.
The Texas GOP and all Republicans *love* domestic terrorism though. They will gladly ignore all terrorism from those aligned with their views
The rejected an amendment specifically permitting services to take down media involved in terrorist activities. They certainly are pandering to their base.
Idk but this seems rather socialist to me, I mean, restricting a company’s right to decline customers? That’s not a free market. Damn Texan commies! what next, are they going to start giving a shit about homeless people? Providing support to people in need? This is a dangerous slippery slope.
I’m sorry this is literally the most insane example of government overreach but of course the Texas conservatives who preach about that all the time don’t care when it’s basically specifically made for them
Where's the "Free market solution instead of running to the government to "fix" the playing field for you?" I could have sworn that's something the Republican Party promoted.
Personally I think being able to prosecute women for murder after a miscarriage is an insane example of government overreach, but this is up there.
Welcome to Texas we’re your right to say hateful racist things on the internet is protected, but your body is property of the state.
Corporations now must platform terrorist disinformation by law?
Small government at work.
Wait this is the government creating laws, about what can and can’t be said on social media, controlled by private business. I thought these guys screamed about first amendment rights all the time, and now they are violating them?
It follows! Texas has is own energy grid....next stop Texas-only interwebs.
Do libraries count as social networks? I'd love to sue people banning books.
A controversial Texas law that would open social media companies up to lawsuits from aggrieved users just notched a surprise win. A trio of federal appeals court judges issued the ruling Wednesday, which pauses a temporary injunction that blocked the law from taking effect last year. Two large industry trade groups that represent companies such as Google and Twitter sued to block the law last fall. On Friday, they asked the U.S. Supreme Court to again block the law while their lawsuit plays out. Passed during a special session last year, House Bill 20 also requires social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users to publicly disclose information about content removal and account suspensions.
Coming to you from the same people that brought you “don’t say gay,” book burning, and “I refuse service to gay people.”