"The owner or operator of a social media website who contracts with a social media website user in this State is subject to a private right of action by a user if the social media website purposely: ... (2) uses an algorithm to disfavor, shadowban, or censure the user's religious speech or political speech".
In May 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled to strike the law (and similarly there was a 5th Circuit judgement), but just this month the US Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals judgement (i.e. reinstated the law) and remanded it back to the respective Court of Appeals. That said, the grounds for doing that were the court had not done the proper analysis, and after they do that it might be struck down again. But for now, the laws are technically not struck down.
It would be ironic if after conservatives passed this law, and stacked the supreme court and got the challenge to it vacated, the first major use of it was used against Xitter for censoring Harris!
People stupid enough to support fascism aren't smart enough to recognize that it can be used against them
It's the same stupid that thinks a dictator will preserve their freedom.
The same people who think a narcissistic billionaire is "one of them" because he says all the stupid things they're thinking.
It would be ironic
It would be Fascism.
Why not both
Ironically, there is nothing ironic about fascism.
Of course not, fuck fascism, but even fascists can say ironic/moronic bullshit :)
Even without all that messing with stuff too much is bound to clash with protections those kinds of sites have around editorialising. That is, by doing such stuff X says "we're not actually a pinboard, we're a newspaper, we're editorially responsible for what's on there", and then prosecution can come along and say "so, your newspaper published an article calling for , didn't it? That's your speech now, not speech of some random user, isn't it?".
No. That doesn’t make it right though.
the corporatocracy is an authoritarian dictatorship and there's nothing you can do about it
No, if you are rich enough.
Still being on Twitter? Immoral and destructive, but still legal.
Isn't that, like, illegal?
Maybe technically in Florida and Texas, given that they passed a law to try to stop sites deplatforming Trump.
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/bills/3102.htm
"The owner or operator of a social media website who contracts with a social media website user in this State is subject to a private right of action by a user if the social media website purposely: ... (2) uses an algorithm to disfavor, shadowban, or censure the user's religious speech or political speech".
In May 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled to strike the law (and similarly there was a 5th Circuit judgement), but just this month the US Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals judgement (i.e. reinstated the law) and remanded it back to the respective Court of Appeals. That said, the grounds for doing that were the court had not done the proper analysis, and after they do that it might be struck down again. But for now, the laws are technically not struck down.
It would be ironic if after conservatives passed this law, and stacked the supreme court and got the challenge to it vacated, the first major use of it was used against Xitter for censoring Harris!
People stupid enough to support fascism aren't smart enough to recognize that it can be used against them
It's the same stupid that thinks a dictator will preserve their freedom.
The same people who think a narcissistic billionaire is "one of them" because he says all the stupid things they're thinking.
It would be Fascism.
Why not both
Ironically, there is nothing ironic about fascism.
Of course not, fuck fascism, but even fascists can say ironic/moronic bullshit :)
Even without all that messing with stuff too much is bound to clash with protections those kinds of sites have around editorialising. That is, by doing such stuff X says "we're not actually a pinboard, we're a newspaper, we're editorially responsible for what's on there", and then prosecution can come along and say "so, your newspaper published an article calling for , didn't it? That's your speech now, not speech of some random user, isn't it?".
No. That doesn’t make it right though.
the corporatocracy is an authoritarian dictatorship and there's nothing you can do about it
No, if you are rich enough.
Still being on Twitter? Immoral and destructive, but still legal.