Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (12273)	11/30/2019 9:53:38 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 12465

I should point out that there's a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of reach. In real life, that means we might allow a hate group to march at a given time at a given secured location, but not whenever and/or wherever they want. Social media obviously makes this containment way more difficult. On Facebook, restrictions on reach might translate to allowing a hate group to have a clearly labeled group board, though said board is subject to removal if any members express these beliefs beyond these borders. On Twitter, it might mean preventing a group from making organized attacks. Is this bias (i.e. given some groups are restricted and some not) or tolerance (i.e. since hate groups are allowed at least some voice)? And are these editorial decisions (i.e. acting as a publisher) or "common-sense" (i.e. in keeping with precedent) application of the First Amendment? My sense is that we'll have numerous lawsuits over this and end up with a definition similar to pornography: "we'll know it when we see it". Personally, I think the line is drawn when you start making one or more people fear for their safety. It would be the social media equivalent that it's OK to yell "fire", but not in a crowded theater. For example, maybe your neighbor keeps calling the cops every time your dog barks when you let it out. For sure a nuisance, but you are at least not worried he's going to harm you or your dog. But what if the guy takes to Twitter and now some of his followers are harassing you? You don't know who these people are or what they are capable of. OK, so maybe the First Amendment allows him to vent his frustrations. Ditto for others to weigh in. At this point, you probably have to "get through it". But what if this guy just keeps posting about you? Once you start getting persistent threats, IMHO, that's when a line has been crossed. But what if you are a public figure, e.g. a movie star or politician? People, for better or worse, are always talking about you? Stalkers and haters are just part of your job, again, for better or worse. Where is that line drawn? If Twitter or Facebook take action by removing something, again, have they made an editorial decision or are they just exercising common sense? Are they perhaps enforcing their terms of use or rather bowing to public or private pressure? If the latter, is this bias or just a simple business decision? So here we are 20+ years after my lawsuit(s) of people trying to shut me/us up and we are still asking these questions. Not that these are easy questions to answer, but, still, it does amaze me how incrementally the law catches up to technology. You just know companies like Facebook knew what they were doing way back when was eventually going to be regulated or curtailed, but figured, hey, there is no law against it, so what the fk can anyone do about it? Rather, it's been public pressure that has changed Facebook way more so than any regulation. Is bowing to public pressure a sign of bias? Possibly. But, if so, does that mean if we change our opinions on something because "everyone else has" that we are biased? In sum, what we are left with, once again, is speculative cause and effect. We adjudge the effect to be bias, so assume bias was also the cause. One person's biased cause is another person's legal/moral/ethical obligation. One person's bias effect is another person's common-sense solution. Again, I think the only possible legal distinction will be courts will simply conclude they know bias when they see it. And only when enough courts recognize a given social media outlet has engaged in bias will they then label said company as a publisher. I can't see that happening for quite some time. - Jeff