GOP Releases Bill To Stop Administration From Pressuring Social Media Companies… And, It’s Actually

[sun rise]

Yes it's classic "faint praise", but I agree it's a reasonable idea depending on the details. The post properly notes there's a lot of questions about language and grey areas, but I agree it's a good idea that deserves consideration.

I challenge those on the right to find something to approve of from the other side.

GOP Releases Bill To Stop Administration From Pressuring Social Media Companies… And, It’s Actually Not Totally Crazy?

So, I fully expected the first tech-related bills to come out of the House to be pretty stupid. But… I’m actually kinda surprised. Representatives James Comer and Cathy McMorris Rodgers have introduced a bill to stop the administration (amusingly, their press release focuses on the Biden administration, without noting that such a bill would, in theory, bind future administrations of either party) from “pressuring social media companies” in how they moderate.

And, on the whole, I actually like the concept of the bill. The government shouldn’t be pressuring anyone regarding their moderation decisions. Of course, that kind of pressure is already a violation of the 1st Amendment, but having it explicitly laid out in a law like this avoids having to go down the trickier 1st Amendment challenge route. The crux of the bill:

In General—An employee may not —

use the employee’s official authority or influence to advocate that any third party, including a private entity, take any action to censor any speech.

There are a bunch of caveats and definitions in the bill, but.. yeah, in general any of that would likely be a 1st Amendment violation (or at least close to it). I am concerned about the inclusion of “influence” here, because, it’s never a 1st Amendment violation for the government to use the bully pulpit to try to persuade companies or individuals to do things, they do that all the time. The 1st Amendment issue — as courts have repeatedly noted — only comes in when there’s some sort of coercion, usually in the form of a threat of punishment. Merely trying to influence, however, is standard practice for the government.
...
It’s unlikely this bill goes anywhere, of course, but kudos to Reps. Comer and McMorris Rodgers for actually introducing a bill that mostly seems focused on actually reinforcing the 1st Amendment’s protections.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, they go after one business they are targeting because they're throwing a collective childish tantrum over having the rules (they they agreed to) being enforced on them, an industry where they have a known history of finding a business' freedoms outright offensive, and it's a good idea and not crazy?

 

[Debater Slayer]

They want to push forward a redundant bill that is already covered by the First Amendment, not to mention that advocating for illegal activities online should still be a prosecutable offense anyway even if the government doesn't explicitly tell social media platforms to censor such advocacy.

Meanwhile, many members of that very same party are perfectly fine with having the government tell people who they can and cannot marry or telling women that they must carry a pregnancy to term.

Watching the US be destroyed from within for the last several years has been both sobering and sad. It goes to show that resting on one's laurels is never wise and that constant vigilance is necessary in order to maintain a desirable status quo as well as avoid backsliding.

 

[crossfire]

So, if someone uses social media to incite a riot, does it make said instigator immune from prosecution for inciting a riot? After all, many have claimed that rioting is "freedom of speech," much less merely calling for riots.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'll run with the same line I did in another thread, outlining Democrat proposed legislation about hate speech.

It appears better (to me) for existing legislation to be clarified and/or challenged so as to set clear precedent.
The 'influence' part of this both worries me and appears unenforceable. A government employee responding to a press question and saying they wish 4chan wasn't such a toxic environment isn't something I'd see as problematic, personally.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes it's classic "faint praise", but I agree it's a reasonable idea depending on the details. The post properly notes there's a lot of questions about language and grey areas, but I agree it's a good idea that deserves consideration.

I challenge those on the right to find something to approve of from the other side.

GOP Releases Bill To Stop Administration From Pressuring Social Media Companies… And, It’s Actually Not Totally Crazy?

So, I fully expected the first tech-related bills to come out of the House to be pretty stupid. But… I’m actually kinda surprised. Representatives James Comer and Cathy McMorris Rodgers have introduced a bill to stop the administration (amusingly, their press release focuses on the Biden administration, without noting that such a bill would, in theory, bind future administrations of either party) from “pressuring social media companies” in how they moderate.

And, on the whole, I actually like the concept of the bill. The government shouldn’t be pressuring anyone regarding their moderation decisions. Of course, that kind of pressure is already a violation of the 1st Amendment, but having it explicitly laid out in a law like this avoids having to go down the trickier 1st Amendment challenge route. The crux of the bill:

In General—An employee may not —

use the employee’s official authority or influence to advocate that any third party, including a private entity, take any action to censor any speech.

There are a bunch of caveats and definitions in the bill, but.. yeah, in general any of that would likely be a 1st Amendment violation (or at least close to it). I am concerned about the inclusion of “influence” here, because, it’s never a 1st Amendment violation for the government to use the bully pulpit to try to persuade companies or individuals to do things, they do that all the time. The 1st Amendment issue — as courts have repeatedly noted — only comes in when there’s some sort of coercion, usually in the form of a threat of punishment. Merely trying to influence, however, is standard practice for the government.
...
It’s unlikely this bill goes anywhere, of course, but kudos to Reps. Comer and McMorris Rodgers for actually introducing a bill that mostly seems focused on actually reinforcing the 1st Amendment’s protections.

Good these authoritarians need to be stopped from trampling on people's rights.

Hope the bill passes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, if someone uses social media to incite a riot, does it make said instigator immune from prosecution for inciting a riot? After all, many have claimed that rioting is "freedom of speech," much less merely calling for riots.

It's would be the person inciting the riot that should deal with repercussions.

Not the media platform which is neutral, or ought to be.

 

[stvdv]

It's would be the person inciting the riot that should deal with repercussions.

Not the media platform which is neutral, or ought to be.

Exactly

Journalism should be unbiased sharing of News facts. Governments bribing and/or imposing journalists what to do and esp. not to do is a seed to become China 2.0

 

[Stevicus]

Yes it's classic "faint praise", but I agree it's a reasonable idea depending on the details. The post properly notes there's a lot of questions about language and grey areas, but I agree it's a good idea that deserves consideration.

I challenge those on the right to find something to approve of from the other side.

GOP Releases Bill To Stop Administration From Pressuring Social Media Companies… And, It’s Actually Not Totally Crazy?

So, I fully expected the first tech-related bills to come out of the House to be pretty stupid. But… I’m actually kinda surprised. Representatives James Comer and Cathy McMorris Rodgers have introduced a bill to stop the administration (amusingly, their press release focuses on the Biden administration, without noting that such a bill would, in theory, bind future administrations of either party) from “pressuring social media companies” in how they moderate.

And, on the whole, I actually like the concept of the bill. The government shouldn’t be pressuring anyone regarding their moderation decisions. Of course, that kind of pressure is already a violation of the 1st Amendment, but having it explicitly laid out in a law like this avoids having to go down the trickier 1st Amendment challenge route. The crux of the bill:

In General—An employee may not —

use the employee’s official authority or influence to advocate that any third party, including a private entity, take any action to censor any speech.

There are a bunch of caveats and definitions in the bill, but.. yeah, in general any of that would likely be a 1st Amendment violation (or at least close to it). I am concerned about the inclusion of “influence” here, because, it’s never a 1st Amendment violation for the government to use the bully pulpit to try to persuade companies or individuals to do things, they do that all the time. The 1st Amendment issue — as courts have repeatedly noted — only comes in when there’s some sort of coercion, usually in the form of a threat of punishment. Merely trying to influence, however, is standard practice for the government.
...
It’s unlikely this bill goes anywhere, of course, but kudos to Reps. Comer and McMorris Rodgers for actually introducing a bill that mostly seems focused on actually reinforcing the 1st Amendment’s protections.

I'm not sure how it would work in practice, and I honestly don't know how or if government has been influencing social media anyway. I think it goes back to the question of whether social media companies should be viewed as utilities or publishers. They can't be both, and if they're neither, then what exactly are they? What is social media and why is everyone so upset by it? 50 years ago, people would write crazy stuff, but usually with a printing press. But social media is not a printing press. Because of the technology, it's become something much more powerful, both in the positive and the negative.

I don't have Facebook myself. I did, briefly, but suspended it and never went back. I have a Twitter account, but I don't get any tweets on my phone, so it amounts to occasional email in my inbox - usually something from the local TV news. I frequent that site for local news, and mostly AP, UPI, and some of the stuff that shows up on MSN whenever I open a new tab on my browser. Once or twice a week, I might browse through Reddit, and I'll also check out a lot of foreign news sites. I'm always interested in seeing other points of view and what it might look like on the other side of the hill.

That's why I can't understand why people are all up in arms about "influencing social media." When the same tools used to disseminate social media also gives one access to any news site, any source of information from just about every country in the world, why can't people avail themselves of the myriad sources of information out there? Why is it that something being allowed or disallowed on Twitter sends everyone and his uncle into a panic? If the body politic is so far gone that they're influenced by social media (to the point where politicians feel the need to address it), then this country may be beyond hope.

They should look at this as a symptom of a deeper problem. If the politicians and other movers and shakers in our society are upset because the masses can't think for themselves, then they only have themselves to blame.

 

[PureX]

"Pressuring" is already a foolishly vague term.

Also, free speech is not an unlimited right, and neither is the right of a business to police itself. So the idea that any government interference (pressure) should be eliminated is, indeed, stupid. And the solution is simply to clarify what kind of speech is not "free" (i.e., illegal), and how that illegality will be determined. Then, clarify the current laws to better reflect that standard. And then, of course, enforce it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Exactly

Journalism should be unbiased sharing of News facts. Governments bribing and/or imposing journalists what to do and esp. not to do is a seed to become China 2.0

It's no secret that the first thing authoritarian minded people do is to control the lines of communication dictating what people should and should not say or hear.

 

[wellwisher]

This has to do with the Twitter files exposing how a wide range of government intel agencies from FBI, CIA and DOD election tampered for the Democrat party. It is designed to address the Democrat led swamp, running censorship and disinformation campaigns on social media by pressuring social media. Big government overreach is a Left wing thing; regulatory state. They cannot fight the fair fight, so somebody needed to address their cheating tendencies, before they do it again.

If you look at the classified intel problem, for Biden, the propaganda is using the Lefty tactic of the dual standard. If they can get social media to go with the program, there is another cheat in the works. To say otherwise, will be censored as disinformation, until the only news and discussion is to sugar coat their scam. The crooks cannot help themselves, so they needed a deterrent.

If you look at the twitter files and the Hunter Biden Laptop scam it used the same old tired Russian disinformation scam. Once expose main stream media was put on radio silence. Bury their heads ib the sand. They still are censoring by means of collective omission. This will be now be harder to do without drawing attention and an investigation. The crooks need help with their pathology since they will not stop cheating on their own.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This has to do with the Twitter files exposing how a wide range of government intel agencies from FBI, CIA and DOD election tampered for the Democrat party.

[Citation needed]

 

[stvdv]

It's no secret that the first thing authoritarian minded people do is to control the lines of communication dictating what people should and should not say or hear.

True

I'm amazed so many on RF don't see that

 

[Shadow Wolf]

True

I'm amazed so many on RF don't see that

Most of us are just smart enough to know and accept we agreed to abide by a certain set of rules and are mature enough to not complain about it.

 

[stvdv]

Most of us are just smart enough to know and accept we agreed to abide by a certain set of rules and are mature enough to not complain about it.

Nicely said

Not complaining is a powerful attitude

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nicely said

Not complaining is a powerful attitude

If you willingly agree to something in order to use such a website and then complain, it's more of mentality not in power but just being a reasonable and mature adult.
I will complain about things, but it takes something that is actually a issue.

 

[stvdv]

If you willingly agree to something in order to use such a website and then complain

Not my thing nor is critcizing others

it's more of mentality not in power

Not what I said nor meant with powerful

but just being a reasonable and mature adult.

Of course

I will complain about things, but it takes something that is actually a issue

Okay

 

[stvdv]

it's more of mentality not in power

Critcizing others shows "mentality not in power"

 

[Twilight Hue]

Most of us are just smart enough to know and accept we agreed to abide by a certain set of rules and are mature enough to not complain about it.

Sounds like lockstepping in with the government to me, and /or obeying orders at all times!