| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| The First Amendment Is Out of Control |
| 2024-07-03 |
| [NY Times] By Tim Wu The First Amendment was written in the 18th century with the noble and vitally important goal of ensuring robust political debate and a free press. For much of American history, First Amendment cases involving speech typically concerned political dissenters, religious outcasts, intrepid journalists and others whose ability to express their views was threatened by a powerful and sometimes overbearing state. The First Amendment was a tool that helped the underdog. But sometime in this century the judiciary lost the plot. Judges have transmuted a constitutional provision meant to protect unpopular opinion into an all-purpose tool of legislative nullification that now mostly protects corporate interests. Nearly any law that has to do with the movement of information can be attacked in the name of the First Amendment. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in the two NetChoice cases greatly adds to the problem. The cases concern two state laws, one in Florida and one in Texas, that limit the ability of social media platforms to remove or moderate content. (Both laws were enacted in response to the perceived censorship of political conservatives.) While the Supreme Court remanded both cases to lower courts for further factual development, the court nonetheless went out of its way to state that the millions of algorithmic decisions made every day by social media platforms are protected by the First Amendment. It did so by blithely assuming that those algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers. Mr. Wu is a law professor at Columbia who writes often about Big Tech. He served on the National Economic Council as a special assistant to the president for competition and tech policy from 2021 to 2023. There's more at the link |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #24 If I have a handle on this, please help or fill in: The mass media service runs an algorithm on the submitted content. It counts naughty words, phrases, etc. and score enough points, the content gets flagged and a censor reviews the content. The previous is a hard analysis data vs. the algorithm; this is the human part. The censor then conducts an interview with the poster, and can apply a series of procedures to poster - demonetize, watch training videos, which parts need altering, even deplatform. Even after the struggle session the censor could add further penalties, like adding auto-naughty points to additional posted content. And this is where the ruling kicks in? That that portion is randomly variations in the thinking of the inquisitor can be wildly inconsistent and unforgiving, which can have a direct monetary impact on the client such as advertising revenue, as opposed to a private non-contracted site. What the ruling is saying is that both the algorithm and the censor are both under the scrutiny of federal guidelines, the algorithm is a solid piece of evidence where a human involvement is inconsistent in comparison? *disclaimer: I've been zapped by such a thing; advertised on advertface, and when shopping insurance was directly declined by content with no explanation without contacting for inquiry based on that information. Nothing illegal, hardly, don't even need special license to peddle, but depending on who the inquisitor was, and off paper guidelines, is controversial. Mr. Wu, Columbia law professor, special assistant tech policy. is arguing that those censors are necessary, especially so since it is off the record. It isn't 'perceived'. And yes. Thank you badanov and all others underneath the hood; hit the tip. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2024-07-03 21:32 |
| #23 Mr. Wu is a law professor at Columbia who writes often about Big Tech. He served on the National Economic Council as a special assistant to the president for competition and tech policy from 2021 to 2023. No sympathetic Chinese influence on Biden policies, I suppose. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-07-03 21:08 |
| #22 Dang TW, you really know how to skewer a miscreant with the soft admonition. Were you Southern, it would be the proverbial "Bless His Heart" allusion to imbecility! |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2024-07-03 19:10 |
| #21 Mr. Borgia1150 is the Toronto ponce who gets off on pretending to be an eeeeevil American. He never learnt proper Canadian good manners, poor dear — I can only imagine how much he has disappointed his mother. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2024-07-03 17:38 |
| #20 "Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance." It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules," Carlin |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2024-07-03 16:15 |
| #19 Out of control? OK, let's shut down WaPo and NYT. Let's see if they want to defend the First. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2024-07-03 16:07 |
| #18 Erb is trying to be cleverly provocative, poor soul. |
| Posted by: Cured Romantic 2024-07-03 14:43 |
| #17 Like, wow. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2024-07-03 14:01 |
| #16 Freeze peach is the greatest weapon of the antisemite. If Twitter had cracked down hard after Oct 7 we wouldn't be in this situation now, with antisemitism running rampant and unchecked, and Twitter a primary cause of infection. Facebook and Youtube don't allow this garbage. |
| Posted by: Vortigern Borgia1150 2024-07-03 12:56 |
| #15 There's quite a bit here that might be pruned. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-07-03 12:27 |
| #14 ^ Everyone here provides something. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2024-07-03 12:27 |
| #13 Frank's weird insults are keeping the site up today. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:55 |
| #12 ^ A very weird cat. In charge of shit. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:47 |
| #11 #6 Well. I didn't double post. Is the acid good? Posted by: M. Murcek |
| Posted by: Frank G 2024-07-03 11:43 |
| #10 Knew it would bother you, Frank. All good. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:43 |
| #9 Knew it would bother you, Frank. All good. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:42 |
| #8 He's keeping the site up, dontchaknow. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:38 |
| #7 Ohhh. A badonov post. No wonder it's darkening you trip. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:37 |
| #6 Well. I didn't double post. Is the acid good? |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:35 |
| #5 And yet here you are, front of the cue, eager for a double-post. It did so by blithely assuming that those algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers. An algorithm, determined by humans (Thanks GoogleAI!), in a consistent and efficient manner. Sounds like job concern to me. Oh, tracking back: that limit the ability of social media platforms to remove or moderate content. That is active, not perceived, involvement. This is a hack job article. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2024-07-03 11:34 |
| #4 Ooh. Let's use bold and hope people think it's a link. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:31 |
| #3 FIFY |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2024-07-03 11:25 |
| #2 Linsux! |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:21 |
| #1 Down for most of a day the usual suspect will get a lot of slobbering pats on the back. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-07-03 11:19 |