Social Media Anti-Censorship Act (SMACA): Would you support it?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The fact this very forum exists is proof Facebook doesn't have a monopoly.

[SteveRogers]

Why is everyone on both sides in this thread acting like the monopoly issue is somehow dispositive here? Even monopolies have First Amendment rights.

[IceSpear]

Why do communist totalitarian Republicans hate the free market?

Where is the competition? Twitter was the vehicle for the Arab Spring and the last election. Influencing that is influencing the next political movement.  They shouldn't have that power, period.

So let me get this straight. Libertarians think business owners should be able to have a "no blacks allowed" sign on their window on "principle", yet are suddenly all about government regulation on corporate power when corporations ban right wing conspiracy theorists. How telling.

I'm not 'every libertarian' so stop that please.  Because you have a choice where to go and there are social and economic consequences being a small/medium business and leaving out a section of the population.  I'd serve anyone in my own business, personally, because hey I'm getting paid for it (and I don't give a F what you do in your personal life).

Also I would support this is if the situation was reserved and these were all leftists (e.g. Cenk Uygur) getting banned only, or whatever group (e.g. Antifa).  

More the principle of this is the double standard, if you ban both "sides" you have less of a problem but it's better for ideas to be exposed so they can be countered by evidence and logic.

See, here's the problem with that...nobody believes you. The vast majority of Republicans have exposed over the past few years that they zero principles, and few if any argue with intellectual honesty. We all know the vast majority of the people whinging about this now would be laughing at all the butthurt liberal communist Demoncrats if the shoe was on the other foot, and preaching about how private entities have the right to do whatever they want and libs should stop being such triggered snowflakes about it. So forgive us if we are highly skeptical of your claims that you have the best interests of everyone at heart here.

So, the market has decided. Mmm, Republican tears taste so good. Hoisted by your own petard.

[IceSpear]

So government punishes businesses for their speech (actions, decisions, etc.) to protect free speech of users who agreed to the rules of that business? Yeah that's a contradiction and a half. I don't support Facebook and co's decision to remove Alex Jones but they have every right to do so.

Riddle me this Batman: What are the "public commons" in this day and age?

Edit: it dumbfounds me that left-leaning people will now DEFEND CORPORATE "RIGHTS" to oppress freedom of speech simply because it's people they don't like.  It's going to rubber band in your face so hard and we'll all be f'ed.

And it dumbfounds me that right-leaning people will now pretend to care about freedom of speech and restricting corporate power solely because their Tweeter got banned. Actually wait no it doesn't, since American "conservatives" have zero principles besides worshipping Trump and triggering libs.

[DrScholl]

This is completely out of the realm of what the First Amendment covers. When you sign up for any website you agree to terms and conditions to use services provided by a private company. If you don't like the terms you do not have to sign up and can take your opinions elsewhere. This bill will never be introduced let alone passed and stand up to court scrutiny.

[136or142]

What’s twitter’s main competition? What successful website provides nearly the same service?

Lots of people in this thread are making the assumption that if these companies are not pure monopolies by definition, that they are perfectly competitive markets. Not true at all.

Fine, I’ll use a different word. “Oligopoly”. Insane barriers to entry. You happy?

It’s like saying “Go make your own airline” when being denied to go on a commercial flight.

This is the part people are willfully ignoring.

Precisely. While there are different websites and different social media platforms, they all provide very different types of services. Twitter is qualitatively different from Facebook is qualitatively different from Instagram. They are used for different purposes. In economics terms, they are not substitute goods -- if I get banned from American Airlines, I can easily fly Delta and get mostly the same service. But if I am banned from Facebook, I cannot just switch over to Instagram and have the same experience. (Heck, I am probably already on Instagram, because being on Facebook does not satisfy by desire to be on Instagram.) Since they are not substitutes, they are not similar goods and are not in direct competition. Uber and Lyft offer similar goods. But Amazon and Ebay do not -- even though I can just click to a different site.

None of these behemoths have direct competitors offering similar goods (substitutes) because the nature of social networks is that the size of the network justifies itself. No one wants to join a new social network with no members when there is another one offering substantially the same product already existing-- even if the new one is better in some respects. Hence, the barriers to entry, while seemingly nonexistent, are actually insurmountable. It is for these reasons that these entities become the public square and should be subject to fair, independent freedom of speech regulation.

Social media platforms don't charge money. If you get banned from American Airlines and Delta is the only competitor, Delta might be able to charge you more.  There is no such equivalent with social media platforms. 

As I keep pointing out, if you want social media platforms to be regulated as public utilities, and you aren't merely complaining because you feel they are 'discriminating' against conservatives, then what about all the other examples I raised previously of regulating other oligopolies/monopolies in a similar fashion and what about regulation of other media outlets?

If you aren't just whining over 'conservatives are being treated unfairly!' then why aren't you concerned over those things as well?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The concern leading to this idea is legitimate, but this isn't anything like a justified or workable solution.

On the other hand idea that anything on twitter would automatically be called "speech" by twitter doesn't make a lot of sense to me.   So if someone is removed from the platform without violating the Terms of Service I could support there being a basis for legal action by the removed party, which wouldn't be the case if it was truly a matter of twitter or fb's speech/press freedom.

[Cory]

Precisely. While there are different websites and different social media platforms, they all provide very different types of services. Twitter is qualitatively different from Facebook is qualitatively different from Instagram. They are used for different purposes. In economics terms, they are not substitute goods -- if I get banned from American Airlines, I can easily fly Delta and get mostly the same service. But if I am banned from Facebook, I cannot just switch over to Instagram and have the same experience. (Heck, I am probably already on Instagram, because being on Facebook does not satisfy by desire to be on Instagram.) Since they are not substitutes, they are not similar goods and are not in direct competition. Uber and Lyft offer similar goods. But Amazon and Ebay do not -- even though I can just click to a different site.

None of these behemoths have direct competitors offering similar goods (substitutes) because the nature of social networks is that the size of the network justifies itself. No one wants to join a new social network with no members when there is another one offering substantially the same product already existing-- even if the new one is better in some respects. Hence, the barriers to entry, while seemingly nonexistent, are actually insurmountable. It is for these reasons that these entities become the public square and should be subject to fair, independent freedom of speech regulation.

Nail on the head.

[DavidB.]

Precisely. While there are different websites and different social media platforms, they all provide very different types of services. Twitter is qualitatively different from Facebook is qualitatively different from Instagram. They are used for different purposes. In economics terms, they are not substitute goods -- if I get banned from American Airlines, I can easily fly Delta and get mostly the same service. But if I am banned from Facebook, I cannot just switch over to Instagram and have the same experience. (Heck, I am probably already on Instagram, because being on Facebook does not satisfy by desire to be on Instagram.) Since they are not substitutes, they are not similar goods and are not in direct competition. Uber and Lyft offer similar goods. But Amazon and Ebay do not -- even though I can just click to a different site.

None of these behemoths have direct competitors offering similar goods (substitutes) because the nature of social networks is that the size of the network justifies itself. No one wants to join a new social network with no members when there is another one offering substantially the same product already existing-- even if the new one is better in some respects. Hence, the barriers to entry, while seemingly nonexistent, are actually insurmountable. It is for these reasons that these entities become the public square and should be subject to fair, independent freedom of speech regulation.

Exactly.

[Torie]

Beet's post was well written, and certainly in general true, but if Facebook adopted a policy of discriminating against say "conservatives," over time there would be an incentive for someone to start a network that did not discriminate against conservatives, for which there would be demand. Functional monopolies are not airtight monopolies, in the way it's airtight the one cannot travel faster than the speed of light (except in Sci Fi movies). If a monopoly adopts problematical policies (short of violating the antitrust laws), that creates an open niche for someone else to fill catering to those who do not like such policies, who may be willing to give up something else (such as having a huge network) in order to have met their desire for something else (like being conservative friendly). And I don't think those leaving Facebook would suffer that much myself. In the case of Facebook, if there were another smaller network, if one left, you would just tell all your friends where you went, and for those who matter, you could still be able to use such a platform type to socialize and communicate.

Putting all that aside, many people, including myself, would be much, much happier if Facebook did not exist at all. It's a bane. I think my partner Dan spends about 3 hours a day on it at least. Boo!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Beet's post has a fundamental flaw in it.

It is for these reasons that these entities become the public square and should be subject to fair, independent freedom of speech regulation.

The whole reason for the first amendment freedom of speech is that we can't trust government to fairly regulate speech, yet he asserts that to preserve such freedom we need fair, independent regulation.

[Torie]

Beet's post has a fundamental flaw in it.

It is for these reasons that these entities become the public square and should be subject to fair, independent freedom of speech regulation.

The whole reason for the first amendment freedom of speech is that we can't trust government to fairly regulate speech, yet he asserts that to preserve such freedom we need fair, independent regulation.

As you know, we do have the "fairness doctrine," so there are instances where speech is effectively regulated by government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Beet's post has a fundamental flaw in it.

It is for these reasons that these entities become the public square and should be subject to fair, independent freedom of speech regulation.

The whole reason for the first amendment freedom of speech is that we can't trust government to fairly regulate speech, yet he asserts that to preserve such freedom we need fair, independent regulation.

As you know, we do did have the "fairness doctrine," so there are instances where speech is effectively regulated by government.

FTFY

The doctrine died in 1989 and was formally buried in 2011.

Moreover, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), a unanimous court ruled that despite media concentration effectively making local newspapers effectively local monopolies with substantial barriers to entry, there was no First Amendment justification for compulsory access to contrasting editorial opinions, even if providing such access caused the paper to incur no additional costs.

Potentially, one might link the legal shielding social media companies get from the content their users create to having a "fairness doctrine" of the internet, but that's not a First Amendment argument.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Beet's post has a fundamental flaw in it.

It is for these reasons that these entities become the public square and should be subject to fair, independent freedom of speech regulation.

The whole reason for the first amendment freedom of speech is that we can't trust government to fairly regulate speech, yet he asserts that to preserve such freedom we need fair, independent regulation.

As you know, we do have the "fairness doctrine," so there are instances where speech is effectively regulated by government.

The Fairness Doctrine stopped being enforced in 1987 (leading to the rise of right-wing talk radio) formally repealed in 2011, by Obama's FCC.

[Torie]

Well I learned something. Thank you.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Also, people are perfectly free to create their own social media platforms or use other ones if they don't like the existing monopolistic ones. MySpace still exists and there are Russian and Chinese clones of Facebook that allow anyone to create an account. In fact, Instagram seems to be displacing Twitter for actual social networking.

And really, there has to be some reasonable standard of moderation beyond "credible threat" or whatever, because otherwise the user experience suffers noticeably. This proposal could become a huge Pandora's Box.

[DC Al Fine]

Beet's post was well written, and certainly in general true, but if Facebook adopted a policy of discriminating against say "conservatives," over time there would be an incentive for someone to start a network that did not discriminate against conservatives, for which there would be demand. Functional monopolies are not airtight monopolies, in the way it's airtight the one cannot travel faster than the speed of light (except in Sci Fi movies). If a monopoly adopts problematical policies (short of violating the antitrust laws), that creates an open niche for someone else to fill catering to those who do not like such policies, who may be willing to give up something else (such as having a huge network) in order to have met their desire for something else (like being conservative friendly). And I don't think those leaving Facebook would suffer that much myself. In the case of Facebook, if there were another smaller network, if one left, you would just tell all your friends where you went, and for those who matter, you could still be able to use such a platform type to socialize and communicate.

This sounds bit like like saying Jim Crow businessmen created a niche for restaurants, hotels etc to serve blacks. Technically true, but it's misses the point of the complaint.

[Torie]

Beet's post was well written, and certainly in general true, but if Facebook adopted a policy of discriminating against say "conservatives," over time there would be an incentive for someone to start a network that did not discriminate against conservatives, for which there would be demand. Functional monopolies are not airtight monopolies, in the way it's airtight the one cannot travel faster than the speed of light (except in Sci Fi movies). If a monopoly adopts problematical policies (short of violating the antitrust laws), that creates an open niche for someone else to fill catering to those who do not like such policies, who may be willing to give up something else (such as having a huge network) in order to have met their desire for something else (like being conservative friendly). And I don't think those leaving Facebook would suffer that much myself. In the case of Facebook, if there were another smaller network, if one left, you would just tell all your friends where you went, and for those who matter, you could still be able to use such a platform type to socialize and communicate.

This sounds bit like like saying Jim Crow businessmen created a niche for restaurants, hotels etc to serve blacks. Technically true, but it's misses the point of the complaint.

What did I miss exactly? If over time, the problems associated with a "monopoly" would tend to fade over time, that is a factor to take into consideration when considering regulation, no?

The reference to Jim Crow does not impress me, because that is a bad niche, while the niches discussed here are not per se bad, and if needed to provide services to certain cohorts for reasonable reasons, in fact good.

[SteveRogers]

Beet's post was well written, and certainly in general true, but if Facebook adopted a policy of discriminating against say "conservatives," over time there would be an incentive for someone to start a network that did not discriminate against conservatives, for which there would be demand. Functional monopolies are not airtight monopolies, in the way it's airtight the one cannot travel faster than the speed of light (except in Sci Fi movies). If a monopoly adopts problematical policies (short of violating the antitrust laws), that creates an open niche for someone else to fill catering to those who do not like such policies, who may be willing to give up something else (such as having a huge network) in order to have met their desire for something else (like being conservative friendly). And I don't think those leaving Facebook would suffer that much myself. In the case of Facebook, if there were another smaller network, if one left, you would just tell all your friends where you went, and for those who matter, you could still be able to use such a platform type to socialize and communicate.

This sounds bit like like saying Jim Crow businessmen created a niche for restaurants, hotels etc to serve blacks. Technically true, but it's misses the point of the complaint.

No, Twitter banning Alex Jones is not analogous to Jim Crow, and the legislation proposed in this thread would not be analogous to the Civil Rights Act. Jesus Christ, people. The Civil Rights Act prohibits businesses from discrimination on the basis of characteristics like race, sex, age, and disability. Yes, some state anti-discrimination laws have added sexual orientation to that list as well. None of that is the same as the government forbidding a business from denying service on the basis of a customer’s partisan affiliation, ideology, or the content of their speech.

Restaurants have always been free to refuse to serve a customer who is loud, offensive, or just a jerk they do t want to be associated with. Twitter and Facebook have that same freedom of association. There is no state interest at play here strong enough to support completely gutting a private enterprise such as Twitter or Facebook’s First Amendment rights. If such a service qualifies as a monopoly, then of course it should be heavily regulated as such to prevent antitrust behavior. Banning racists and crackpots has nothing to do with whether or not Twitter is engaging in anticompetitive acts. You don’t see anyone on the left proposing federal legislation to prevent the NFL (a monopoly) from disciplining kneeling players, because even if we find the NFL’s conduct deplorable, we recognize they have the legal right to make their own rules.

[DC Al Fine]

Beet's post was well written, and certainly in general true, but if Facebook adopted a policy of discriminating against say "conservatives," over time there would be an incentive for someone to start a network that did not discriminate against conservatives, for which there would be demand. Functional monopolies are not airtight monopolies, in the way it's airtight the one cannot travel faster than the speed of light (except in Sci Fi movies). If a monopoly adopts problematical policies (short of violating the antitrust laws), that creates an open niche for someone else to fill catering to those who do not like such policies, who may be willing to give up something else (such as having a huge network) in order to have met their desire for something else (like being conservative friendly). And I don't think those leaving Facebook would suffer that much myself. In the case of Facebook, if there were another smaller network, if one left, you would just tell all your friends where you went, and for those who matter, you could still be able to use such a platform type to socialize and communicate.

This sounds bit like like saying Jim Crow businessmen created a niche for restaurants, hotels etc to serve blacks. Technically true, but it's misses the point of the complaint.

What did I miss exactly? If over time, the problems associated with a "monopoly" would tend to fade over time, that is a factor to take into consideration when considering regulation, no?

The reference to Jim Crow does not impress me, because that is a bad niche, while the niches discussed here are not per se bad, and if needed to provide services to certain cohorts for reasonable reasons, in fact good.

The point I think you missed is thus: The fact that blacks could eat out at black owned restaurants doesnt negate the fact that the denial of service in Jim Crow friendly restaurants was unjust. Denying access to the social media near monopolies due to one's politics seems similarly unjust even if one could technically go elsewhere.

Furthermore, as others have noted the appeal of a Facebook or Twitter to users is that it's so huge, so I doubt a conservative social media network would garner anywhere near the market share that black friendly businesses managed in Jim Crow.

How precisely do you differentiate between a bad and a good niche?

[DC Al Fine]

Beet's post was well written, and certainly in general true, but if Facebook adopted a policy of discriminating against say "conservatives," over time there would be an incentive for someone to start a network that did not discriminate against conservatives, for which there would be demand. Functional monopolies are not airtight monopolies, in the way it's airtight the one cannot travel faster than the speed of light (except in Sci Fi movies). If a monopoly adopts problematical policies (short of violating the antitrust laws), that creates an open niche for someone else to fill catering to those who do not like such policies, who may be willing to give up something else (such as having a huge network) in order to have met their desire for something else (like being conservative friendly). And I don't think those leaving Facebook would suffer that much myself. In the case of Facebook, if there were another smaller network, if one left, you would just tell all your friends where you went, and for those who matter, you could still be able to use such a platform type to socialize and communicate.

This sounds bit like like saying Jim Crow businessmen created a niche for restaurants, hotels etc to serve blacks. Technically true, but it's misses the point of the complaint.

No, Twitter banning Alex Jones is not analogous to Jim Crow, and the legislation proposed in this thread would not be analogous to the Civil Rights Act. Jesus Christ, people. The Civil Rights Act prohibits businesses from discrimination on the basis of characteristics like race, sex, age, and disability. Yes, some state anti-discrimination laws have added sexual orientation to that list as well. None of that is the same as the government forbidding a business from denying service on the basis of a customer’s partisan affiliation, ideology, or the content of their speech.

Restaurants have always been free to refuse to serve a customer who is loud, offensive, or just a jerk they do t want to be associated with. Twitter and Facebook have that same freedom of association. There is no state interest at play here strong enough to support completely gutting a private enterprise such as Twitter or Facebook’s First Amendment rights. If such a service qualifies as a monopoly, then of course it should be heavily regulated as such to prevent antitrust behavior. Banning racists and crackpots has nothing to do with whether or not Twitter is engaging in anticompetitive acts. You don’t see anyone on the left proposing federal legislation to prevent the NFL (a monopoly) from disciplining kneeling players, because even if we find the NFL’s conduct deplorable, we recognize they have the legal right to make their own rules.

You missed the point of the exchange entirely.

Torie brought up a hypothetical policy of discrimination by social media companies against conservatives in general. Banning one person for slander or inciting violence is a different kettle of fish.

Furthermore, the "Facebook, Twitter etc is a private company and should be left alone" that many bring up is disingenuous in that it ignores that social media is a unique case, in that the major social media companies are effectively aix of private company and public square, and possess near monopolies in their subfields.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ideally the social media platforms would be nationalized within a democratic socialist system.

Granted, their global presence complicates any discussion of "reform."

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Ideally the social media platforms would be nationalized within a democratic socialist system.

Granted, their global presence complicates any discussion of "reform."

This.

[DrScholl]

Does Twitter really need to be nationalized? It's a free service that many people don't even use to discuss politics. It isn't a utility that is needed for quality of life.

[SteveRogers]

Does Twitter really need to be nationalized? It's a free service that many people don't even use to discuss politics. It isn't a utility that is needed for quality of life.

This.

Many in this thread are using “monopoly” and “public utility” like they’re synonymous concepts. They’re not.