House Republicans Have A Big Tech Plan… That Is Both Unconstitutional And Ridiculous
from the oh-come-on dept
Republicans have spent decades holding themselves out as the party of “small government” and “keeping government out of business,” while also claiming to be strict supporters of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The reality, of course, is something altogether different. Even as Republican politicians often pay lips service to these claims, their policy ideas show the opposite. The top Republican on the House Energy & Commerce Committee has announced the GOP’s “Big Tech Accountability Platform” that has an astounding level of government interference not just into business, but into the 1st Amendment rights of all Americans.
The full plan is somewhat astounding (I don’t know why it’s showing sideways, but I guess download it and rotate it). It opens by paying lip service to the idea of the 1st Amendment, and the value of “more speech” over suppressing speech. But then immediately seeks to undermine the 1st Amendment by suggesting that internet companies should be compelled to host speech they disagree with. It falsely suggests that the decision to suspend President Trump’s account was an attack on his conservative views, and not his efforts to incite his supporters into overturning the election. It includes a section on giving law enforcement more access to content and forcing tech companies to become an arm of law enforcement. It (of course!) has a section on protecting “our children.”
The whole thing is a censor’s dream.
Of course, the GOP has no real power in Congress, especially in the House right now, but that could change quite a bit over the next few years, so we should take these proposals seriously. The key parts of the plan are here:
We could go through piece by piece and explain how these issues are misleading, wrong, silly, or pointless, but I’m sure we’ll have plenty of chances to address each point as they start showing up in various bills.
What is clear, however, is that most of this policy is not about any principled stands the GOP may have. Most of it is about spite.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, cathy mcmorris rodgers, censorship, content moderation, for the children, gop, responsibility, section 230, transparency
Comments on “House Republicans Have A Big Tech Plan… That Is Both Unconstitutional And Ridiculous”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
blocked account of trump while he was still the president
No, it didn’t break any part of S.230, but it did truly defy the judge’s order that prevented president Trump from blocking users himself…
Re: blocked account of trump while he was still the president
No, no it did not. Just because Trump wasn’t allowed to block people from an account did not in any way obligate Twitter to keep that account active as when it comes to the first amendment government actors and agencies are bound by it but not private individuals or companies.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: blocked account of trump while he was still the presiden
Are you telling me that Twitter could have blocked any user they wanted to block to prevent them from retweeting, replying,etc. to Trump’s account? Or have I misunderstood your reasoning?
Re: Re: Re: blocked account of trump while he was still the pres
No, you seem to have understood what I was saying. Twitter is not part of the government so they could have blocked any user they wanted to, Trump however most certainly was(I love being able to write that past tense), and as such he was limited in how he could handle his account because he’d been using it for official government business/communications, essentially turning it into a government run account.
Re: Re: Re:2 blocked account of trump while he was still the
"Trump however most certainly was(I love being able to write that past tense), and as such he was limited in how he could handle his account because he’d been using it for official government business/communications, essentially turning it into a government run account."
This is always worth repeating to the wilfully ignorant. This decision was made necessary purely because Trump refused to use the official account that had been provided to him for official government work, and insisted on using his personal account. Sometimes to the degree that actions he took as president were only communicated there, and even his own staffers didn’t know about them until the announcement was made there. It had to be treated as a government account, because he was doing government work there, instead of on the government property he was given for that purpose.
I know it’s going to be difficult to relay basic facts from just a couple of years ago to these people, but it’s worth repeating that the actions taken were only taken because Trump was so worthless at the most basic elements of his job in the first place.
Re: Re: blocked account of trump while he was still the presiden
Not only are private entities not "bound" by it, they are protected by it against government interference, exactly so something like that Judge’s order can’t apply to them
Re: blocked account of trump while he was still the president
No, it didn’t break any part of S.230, but it did truly defy the judge’s order that prevented president Trump from blocking users himself…
Bzzt. No. Wrong.
The Knight case only said that PUBLIC OFFICIALS if THEY create a limited public space, then THEY cannot choose to block people on the basis of their speech. That’s it. It said nothing about Twitter removing the President.
It just said that Trump himself could not block users.
Re: Re: blocked account of trump while he was still the presiden
anon –
My advice: don’t bother.
Masnick and co are "for" free speech the same way that his Joe Biden is "against" pedophilia.
In other words: if you despise America, anything you say is a mitzah; if you love America, anything you say is nonkosher.
Anything said to the contrary is annudah shoah.
Re: Re: Re: blocked account of trump while he was still the pres
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:2 blocked account of trump while he was still the
Toom to his boyfriend: "Projects … facts… not in… I mean, I’m gonna come!"
Re: Re: Re:3 blocked account of trump while he was still
Bobmail to the rest of the world:
"Fibble dibble bop cluck cluck shrimp paste!"
Re: blocked account of trump while he was still the president
Hey, nice to see that your need to completely misrepresent facts and base your arguments on a fake reality is not being affected by recent events.
"House Republicans Have A Big Tech Plan… That Is Both Unconstitutional And Ridiculous"
What’s new?
Republicans began rejecting reality decades ago, spiraling into a dive of madness, resulting in believing that Trump won the election despite 60 courts and 90+ judges saying that they had no cases. Fellow Republicans (the few sane ones left) said Biden won in their states after audits, verifications, and vote checking.
Why be surprised by a little more bat poop from them?
Re: Re:
At first I didn’t read what you said, but just assumed it was "do not disobey Big Tech and government … they know best".
Then I read it, and turns out I was right!
Techdirt Blue Checkmark’s motto: "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Total Obedience To Our Global Masters… Whatever’s Cool".
Re: Re: Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Someday
We might have a democracy that works.
Those we select to represent us, CAN be fired. Just a couple thousand signatures.
Its not supposed to:
be a life time job
benefited, they really dont need free air flights.
Medical coverage, maybe alittle.
Originally it wasnt even a Paid job, it was a Stipend for travel and meals.(tell that to the republicans)
Anyone think we might Need a bill of rights and requirements from CORPS? its so convoluted at this time, we dont know what they can/cant do. and I dont think they know either.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Someday
I agree completely. Politicain shouldn’t be a job description, only a hobby.
Re: Someday
This. The Bill of Rights is pointless if there’s a giant loophole for the government to abuse in it. As it stands CORPS have more power to effect the lives of citizens than the government, (By directly refusing them employment, one sided contracts, forced opt-out of the legal system, Right to Contract trumping everything else, etc.) with none of the responsibility or the protections against them. They are a third-party that gets to straddle the line between government and person the same way that digital goods get to straddle the line between "sold" and "leased." I.e. What ever allows them to win.
If the government wants your data, no need to ask you, just go to the CORPS with the All-Writs act. Need to silence someone? File a bunch of DMCA takedown requests, send a few NSA letters, etc. Does the government need protection from liability? Just claim it was a private company’s decision protected by their first-amendment rights. Need legal protections for your business model? Just slip the politicians enough campaign contributions and they’ll let you write the legislation yourself. Need a get out of jail free card? Just update those contracts of yours to include the magic words: "forced arbitration and class-action wavier." Unpaid Loans / Fines? Took on too much debt? Have the taxpayers bail you out. Representation? Yeah, it’s called Wall Street. Someone wanna complain about this? Just claim there’s plenty of other options out there for them to choose from. All of which are just as on board with / subject to this arrangement as the others.
When the CORPS are too big to fail, they make the rules. Right now, the rules say: The people lose.
Re: Re:
You’re literally complaining about capitalism.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Looks to me like much of the AC’s complaints are about public / private corruption. Unless, of course, you believe that public / private corruption is just an inherent component of capitalism.
Re: Re: Re:2
Just so we’re clear: You said it, I didn’t.
I mean, I agree with the notion, but I didn’t say it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
public private corruption isn’t an inherent component of capitalism, you’re doing it wrong.
Re: Re: Re:4
Companies cut corners and lowball workers to save money. Companies lobby lawmakers to cut back on “costly” regulations. Lawmakers accept what amounts to legal bribes from companies to enact corporate-friendly laws. All these things happen in the U.S. right now.
Capitalism breeds corruption. Anyone who believes otherwise is a “temporarily embarassed millionaire” who thinks they’ll be rich one day but will likely never even come close.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And it all of this, political and Corp is the idea of
HOW much is enough?
How much freedom do people really need to feel Safe?
How much Work can we get out of 1 person and still make a profit.
Loved the reasoning in the past about a 90% tax rate. It forced the corps to create MORE so that they could Have more. Getting write-offs for Allot of things, meant they had to DO allot of things.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"…public / private corruption is just an inherent component of capitalism."
Bingo! Tell him what he’s won…
The Republicans and Democrats...
…have spent decades trying to convince the voters that they have principles and are not the self-centered, control freak, authoritarian hypocrites that many of us know them to be.
The worst part is that they have been largely successful.
Re: The Republicans and Democrats...
Yes
But only one tried to overthrow the government publicly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: The Republicans and Democrats...
They both have, repeatedly, and since they write (or at least copy/paste) the laws…there’s not much we can do that is effective.
Re: Re: Re: The Republicans and Democrats...
I must have missed all the times democrats stormed the seats of power in places like Michigan with assault rifles, when democratic groups organised faux riots to try and stop vote counting in swing states to attempt to disenfranchise minority voters and steal an election, and I definitely missed when a democratic president and lawmakers whipped up a crowd of lunatics with fairystories about elections being stolen then setting them loose on the seat of power. I also missed all the left wing groups at the heart of said riots, planning to kidnap and murder people… But hey, both sides, right.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Republicans and Democrats...
I too have not been informed about these transgressions.
Re: Re: Re:3 The Republicans and Democrats...
"I too slept through 2020. No idea what kind of violence, rape, arson, and savagery happened that year. What I do know is when I woke up in 2021 and see awful, terrible, blue-collar White people (they work with their hands !) get a little cranky, it’s annudah shoah and we must send out the FBI and BATF and ADL and SPLC heroes of Waco and Ruby Ridge!"
Speed it up
God I want this party to turn into the Whigs but faster already????♂️
Re: Speed it up
No, you really don’t.
The mainstream, moderate Republican party is really the only thing keeping actual Americans for taking back the country their ancestors promised them.
The GOP is currently in the process of ‘turning into the Whigs’. The country club Republicans are sticking with their safe middle-of-the-road MSM-safe handwringing and ‘denouncing’ of ‘white supremacy’. The patriots are splitting away, turning into the new Know Nothings.
Your type keeps pushing and pushing and pushing White people, and you’re not going to like the result. Remember the last time White people got pushed too far? It was 1933.
big tech
Big tech has no responsibility to or for our children. Parents and/or guardians have responsibility for their children.
The rest of the document is garbage, too.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
big tech
Big tech has no responsibility to or for our children. Parents and/or guardians have responsibility for their children.
The rest of the document is garbage, too.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Very Simple
The core principle is that if a private company builds a public square, then they are also subject to the First Amendment. A company cannot simultaneously claim claim that any speech on its platform is its own, or else it isn’t being compelled to host, while also disavowing liability.
Re: Very Simple
Are you that desperate for a place to speak as you wish that you have to pretend that the law says something other than what it actually says?
Re: Very Simple
Unfortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Very Simple
But fortunately, the Supreme Court found no 1st Amendment protection from liability in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision. Section 230 can be reformed to provide limits to liability immunity unless corporations agree to moderate content on an objective basis, instead of a political editorial one.
Re: Re: Re: Very Simple
Section 230 was partially a response to Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy. Stratton is no longer relevant. You might as well be citing Plessy v Ferguson.
Re: Re: Re:2 Very Simple
Not just partially but basically directly because of that ruling, as the two authors realized how incredibly stupid and problematic it was to hold sites liable for user content if they moderated, which resulted in the law making it clear that moderation does not remove protections against liability for the actions of others.
Re: Re: Re:
Prodigy came before 230 and you know that. At least try to hold onto a shred of your credibility.
Re: Re: Re: Very Simple
But fortunately, the Supreme Court found no 1st Amendment protection from liability in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision.
Um. Koby. Koby, Koby, Koby. I keep asking you to be less stupid in our comments, and then you show up with this nonsense.
PLEASE educate yourself and stop being an idiot in our comments.
Re: Re: Re:2
Narrator: Koby did no such thing.
Re: Re: Re: Very Simple
Does it cause you physical pain to deal with verifiable facts on this subject, or is making up an alternate reality to complain about some kind of fetish?
Re: Re: Re: Very Simple
First, it is not just difficult, but impossible to build a consensus of what is an "objective" basis for all moderation decisions that tech companies face.
There is no way to satisfy everyone’s demands, especially when the grievance of some is not actually happening, and no matter how many times or how clearly this is explained and proven, they refuse to understand.
Third, companies have the right to make political based moderation if they want. It’s their yard, they don’t have to let any and everyone in their yard to play, and they don’t have to let anyone keep playing in their yard that has begun to chafe their nerves. Sure, they should give a clear warning about the problem with a chance to fix it, which most more or less do, but their only obligation is whatever rules they wrote for themselves in their terms and conditions. If the government decides they want to write the rules, it’s only a matter of time before social media platforms start dropping like flies. Starting with the smaller, newer companies who cannot afford to lose chunks of their user base and ad revenue by keeping content that offends and upsets, or continues to host content from someone who has basically earned being cancelled by being despicable and abhorrent; or the company cannot afford to fight lawsuits for moderating out business killing content that might be interpreted as politically motivated.
Certainly no one is going to invest in creating new platforms that can’t make moderation decisions that are in the company’s best interest.
This just leads to killing all competition to the big ones, who will probably have a seat at the table in making the rules with the government.
Re: Re: Re:2 Very Simple
Hence, Conservapedia.com is a thing 🙁 and Conservapedia moderators can moderate, delete, and outright bar whatever and whomever they choose, no matter how moronic, insane, and alt-reality their perspective and criteria might be.
Section 230 giveth, and Section 230 taketh away — but it protects everyone’s "free speech" rights, including Conservapedia’s :-(.
And that’s the way it’s supposed to be.
Re: Re: Re:3 Very Simple
Koby, c’mon now. You’ve been around here long enough to know how this works.
If Big Tech says something, Stone and PaulT and Bernando and ThatOneGay and Upstream and Rocky and Bloof and Masnick and JMT treat it like their boyfriend said it. They’re ‘bottoms’. If a ‘top’ (eg Big Tech, government, a beltway think tank, a CEO, a Twitter checkmark, a Hollywood personality, etc) says it, they simply adopt it unquestioningly.
You’re not going to change their minds with pesky things like facts. If ‘daddy’ wants ’em on their knees, they get on their knees.
Re: Re: Re:4 Very Simple
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:4 Very Simple
"Koby, c’mon now"
The person you were replying to is not Koby. That’s all anyone needs to know about the level of intelligence and reality associated with your posts.
"You’re not going to change their minds with pesky things like facts"
How would you know? It’s not like you’ve ever tried using them. Come on, try cutting down on your weird sexual fantasies about people here and your weird anti-semitism, and try presenting an actual verifiable fact in defence of your ramblings for once!
Re: Very Simple
A company’s private property doesn’t suddenly become a "public square" just because you think it is one. Twitter’s servers are still private property regardless of what they allow the public to do (or not do) on them.
Re: Re: Very Simple
(I read this bit of Big Tech groveling and submissiveness in my head as a lisping voice, with extra-sibilant ‘s’, to evoke right amount of meekness and obsequiousness towards Wall Street.)
Re: Very Simple
The SCOTUS has ruled that social media run by private companies is not a public square. You’re just making up fake laws.
A company can claim that offering their platform is a part of their free speech and through Section 230 disavow liability for the speech of others that they allowed to be posted there.
Your YouTube law degree has no value in the real world.
Re: Very Simple
Core principle? If you make stupid shit up Koby, it is still stupid shit, not a core principle. Are you arguments so weak you have to lie and make shit up as you go? Truly pathetic.
That sentence doesn’t make any sense, none, no matter how you parse it. I’m certain you wanted to make some dishonest argument that has no basis in reality and the law, and you even managed to fail at that.
Re:
And as soon as Twitter is legally declared a “public square” instead of a privately owned open-to-the-public service, you’ll have a point. But that hasn’t happened yet. So you don’t.
And there’s a story from earlier today that handily takes care of your “publishers aren’t protected by 230” argument, by the way. Or were you going to ignore that because your feelings don’t care about facts?
Re: Very Simple
"The core principle is that if a private company builds a public square, then they are also subject to the First Amendment."
You may be right with regards to that silly document and the wingnuts that wrote it, but that doesn’t make it law, or ever likely to be law. It’s just a fever swamp fantasy.
Gotta love blatant and open hypocrisy
Republicans have spent decades holding themselves out as the party of "small government" and "keeping government out of business," while also claiming to be strict supporters of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
To the extent that that a business is saying/doing things they agree with they will absolutely fight against government ‘interference’, however the second that changes they turn on a dime and are suddenly huge fans of the government stepping in to crack heads and set rules.
As for the ‘talking points’ it looks like a delightful rehash of the same bullshit(‘Someone think of the children!’), pandering to the kind of idiots that stormed the gorram capitol(‘Big Tech is silencing the truth!’) and good old hypocritical couch fainting(‘Big tech can manipulate people and elections!… pay no attention to the ‘news’ shows on our side).
Re: Gotta love blatant and open hypocrisy
Republicans seem to have gotten a bit mixed up. In the old days, the Republican party platform was government so small it can dictate what you do in the bedroom, not the boardroom.
I think it is more about theater. Since they aren’t in power, they are free to spout any crazy shit they think will generate headlines to "keep them relevant".
Re: Re:
Or they’re hoping the tech giants will stop giving to Democrats and will start pumping all their money into the GOP coffers to make it stop.
Re: Re: Re:
After the events at the Capitol, that is likely wishful thinking.
Re: Re: 'Since it worked once...'
While I certainly wouldn’t rule it out the tech giants would have to be pretty stupid to think that giving in to threats will make those issuing them less likely to make similar threats in the future.
Re: Re:
Isn’t this the same crazy shit they were spouting when they were in power?
Here is a shorter headline:
There is not a lot happening in the House that would not fit that shorter headline.
The proportion of sanity among Republican Senators, in contrast, may be nothing to be particularly proud of but is decidedly less scary.
Part of the reason certainly is that House members tend to be comparatively fresh off the street regarding the time they spent in politics, particularly that of national import.
So it is to be hoped that as they spend more time in politics and ultimately end up progressing to the Senate, their composure will change.
And it is to be feared that as they spend more time in politics and ultimately end up progressing to the Senate, its composure will change.
They… literally refer to their target sector as "Big Tech".
That’s fucking hilarious, and shows what morons-with-a-bad-agenda these people are.
Bugger off, Big Authoritarian.
"Good Samaritan" obligations
Forgive me if I’m wrong, I’m no biblical scholar, but I don’t remember the Good Samaritan being obligated to help.
Re:
Section 230 has no “Good Samaritan” requirement, either.
Re: Re: 'You were supposed to ban people we don't like, not US!'
The real punchline is how furious they’d be if that actually was in the law. They think they’re feeling the banhammer bad now, wait until sites have an obligation to remove questionable content.
Re: Re: Re:
If you’re legally obliged to do it then you’re not a Good Samaritan, you’re just a citizen.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
yeah if you mean it in the way a cop says it when they are staring at you down the barrel