A federal court takes tech companies’ power to moderate (no more Twitter jail)

[OfTheCross]

We might be going back to 2012 Twitter vibes

In a surprise decision, a federal court upholds a law knee-capping tech companies’ power to moderate - Poynter

Texas’ HB 20 gives legal recourse to litigious users who feel slighted by the companies’ moderation decisions.

www.poynter.org

Last week, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a Texas law, HB 20, that forbids social media companies from banning users for their political positions and censoring posts for partisan slant. It also contains transparency provisions requiring regular updates and statistics on the companies’ censorship decisions.

The law renders large tech companies like Facebook and Twitter that engage in content moderation vulnerable to lawsuits not only from the Texas government, but also from social media users who feel slighted by the companies’ moderation decisions. Critics denounce the law for its ambiguous wording, which, they argue, grants excessive power to aggrieved plaintiffs while simultaneously stripping the companies of their own free speech.

HB 20 also requires social media platforms to disclose information about how they manage content and how they “curate and target content to users.”

The law requires social media companies to publish a transparency report twice a year detailing the number of instances social media platforms were alerted to illegal or policy-violating content, and their responses to it. As part of that clause, the companies are required to publish information on the number of times they took action on:

• Content removal
• Account suspension or removal
• Content demonetization
• Content “reprioritization”
• Users’ appeals to the above infractions

HB 20 additionally obligates the platforms to have a complaint intake mechanism.

While HB 20 is still being batted around in the courts over its constitutionality, the appeals court ruled that the law will stand in the meantime. The decision to uphold the law has already been attacked by stakeholders on both sides of the political aisle. According to The Texas Tribune, the 5th Circuit Court is reputed to be one of the most conservative federal appeal courts in the U.S.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Wow. I'll bet anti Black racism will get covered as a "political position". If I were a tech CEO, I'd just blanket ban Texas IPs. fukk 'em. Can't break local law if you don't operate in their jurisdiction.

 

[DEAD7]

 

[Lord Quas]

Surprise surprise the party of “small government” is telling a private company what they’re allowed to do with their own product. fukking hypocrites.

If they don’t like the platform, they should use and make their own. They whine about liberals but continue to use their platforms and technology. They all should go to Parler or whatever garbage site they use now. shyt is pathetic.

Wonder how much this has to do Elon Musks beef with Twitter and his coming out as Republican…

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I don't mind the transparency. Wish it would extend to even more - they really need to be forced to publish their algorithms if we're going to get any traction on this shyt.


The "can't ban users for political positions" is going get the fukk abused out of it though. But can it only apply to social media companies? Because conservative website comment sections and message boards are FAR more guilty of banning users for politics than social media is.

 

[Pressure]

The algorithms don't merely apply to nefarious shyt. Hence the reason the moderate. Adjust g the algorithm to weed out problematic speech would he rejected under the same law.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

I don't mind the transparency. Wish it would extend to even more - they really need to be forced to publish their algorithms if we're going to get any traction on this shyt.


The "can't ban users for political positions" is going get the fukk abused out of it though. But can it only apply to social media companies? Because conservative website comment sections and message boards are FAR more guilty of banning users for politics than social media is.

"Transparency"? These companies aren't public. They owe you nothing. If you're so concerned about the algorithm, don't use the service.
I also wonder how they define "social media". Does Reddit count? Forums? Or is it only FB/IG/Twitter?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

5th circuit

Of course

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Wow. I'll bet anti Black racism will get covered as a "political position". If I were a tech CEO, I'd just blanket ban Texas IPs. fukk 'em. Can't break local law if you don't operate in their jurisdiction.

Why can’t republicans just make their own shyt hot???

• Gab
• Rumble
• Truth social
• Gettr
• Parler
• MeWe

Etc…

They have to find a way to own the libs on their platforms but there’s no one there so they always fail!

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Why can’t republicans just make their own shyt hot???

• Gab
• Rumble
• Truth social
• Gettr
• Parler
• MeWe

Etc…

They have to find a way to own the libs on their platforms but there’s no one there so they always fail!

Yeah, I wonder if Republicans will apply these laws to THEIR social media companies. Gab has banned people for leftist opinions. Being anti Trump can get you banned from TS.

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

So in other words, if you create a platform you legally cannot control the type of content for it. Let's see if PragerU will start allowing liberal content. As much as don't like right wing conservatism, I do admire they get shyt done even if it's damaging.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Lol @ conservatives championing this new fairness doctrine

 

[Professor Emeritus]

"Transparency"? These companies aren't public. They owe you nothing. If you're so concerned about the algorithm, don't use the service.
I also wonder how they define "social media". Does Reddit count? Forums? Or is it only FB/IG/Twitter?

Holy shyt those boots must taste good.

Yeah, the fact that significant aspects of the future of humanity are in part determined by a secret algorithm just might concern me. Doesn't have jack shyt to do with whether or not I use the service, it's about how it fukks up society in multiple ways.

If you followed this issue at all you would know that calls for algorithm transparency are a major thing by people in the know. Here's a primer on the subject written by someone on the inside. You should read it, she knows a LOT more about the algorithms and the negative impact they're having than you do:

Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy​

A former Wall Street quant sounds an alarm on the mathematical models that pervade modern life and threaten to rip apart our social fabric.

We live in the age of the algorithm. Increasingly, the decisions that affect our lives—where we go to school, whether we get a car loan, how much we pay for health insurance—are being made not by humans, but by mathematical models. In theory, this should lead to greater fairness: Everyone is judged according to the same rules, and bias is eliminated.

But as Cathy O’Neil reveals in this urgent and necessary book, the opposite is true. The models being used today are opaque, unregulated, and uncontestable, even when they’re wrong. Most troubling, they reinforce discrimination: If a poor student can’t get a loan because a lending model deems him too risky (by virtue of his zip code), he’s then cut off from the kind of education that could pull him out of poverty, and a vicious spiral ensues. Models are propping up the lucky and punishing the downtrodden, creating a “toxic cocktail for democracy.” Welcome to the dark side of Big Data.

Tracing the arc of a person’s life, O’Neil exposes the black box models that shape our future, both as individuals and as a society. These “weapons of math destruction” score teachers and students, sort résumés, grant (or deny) loans, evaluate workers, target voters, set parole, and monitor our health.

O’Neil calls on modelers to take more responsibility for their algorithms and on policy makers to regulate their use. But in the end, it’s up to us to become more savvy about the models that govern our lives. This important book empowers us to ask the tough questions, uncover the truth, and demand change.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Holy shyt those boots must taste good.

Yeah, the fact that significant aspects of the future of humanity are in part determined by a secret algorithm just might concern me. Doesn't have jack shyt to do with whether or not I use the service, it's about how it fukks up society in multiple ways.

Here's a primer on the subject written by someone on the inside. You should read it, she knows a LOT more about the algorithms and the negative impact they're having than you do:

Lmao. You're hysterical. Boot? There's no force involved. If you don't like the service, don't use it.

The only thing that can make social media worse is government getting involved in it.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Lmao. You're hysterical. Boot? There's no force involved. If you don't like the service, don't use it.

The only thing that can make social media worse is government getting involved in it.

This is supposed to be "Higher Learning", so it's amazing how often people who have done absolutely zero research into an issue feel free spouting off their opinions as if they were Delivered Truths (TM) without even addressing the counterarguments that were brought up.

I already said my use of the service has literally nothing to do with my issues with the impact of algorithms.