Texas passes SB12, much to the consternation of liberals who want to continue to silence conservatives on social media
Texas moves to protect conservatives from tech giant viewpoint discrimination
The Texas Public Policy Action informs us of Texas SB 12, which would stop companies like Facebook and Twitter from blocking posts based on a political viewpoint.
SB 12 would prevent social media platforms with more than 100 million users in a calendar month from censoring a person’s viewpoint expressed in a social media post but would not prohibit the censoring of content that is prohibited, such as violent or overtly sexual content or in cases where federal law specifically allows websites and services to censor speech. This applies to Texas residents, users who do business in Texas and users who receive or share content on a social media platform in Texas.
SB 12 would require social media platforms to publicly disclose on their website and in a way easily accessible to the public, accurate information regarding its content management, data management, and business practices, including specific information regarding how they use, place, and target content and services.
Requires social media platforms to publish an acceptable use policy informing users of acceptable content, explaining the steps the social media platform will take to ensure content complies with the policy, and explains the means by which users can notify the platform of content that potentially violates the policy.
Requires social media platforms to publish a quarterly transparency report of the number of times they were alerted to illegal content or activity and their response. Provides process by which users can file complaint about content being removed and the responsibilities of the platform in rectifying the complaint.
The Attorney General may sue a social media platform for violating these terms.
(Read why Texas Public Policy Action supports SB12 at Texas Public Policy Action)
Reason.com points to possible flaws of Texas SB12 — all based on federalism
In their review of Texas SB12, Reason.com points out some flaws in Texas SB12:
Political bias on social media is one of the biggest issues animating the political right these days, and thus many conservatives talk about doing something to prevent “Big Tech” censorship. Several Republican-controlled states are considering passing legislation designed to accomplish just that.
The Texas Senate, for instance, is poised to approve SB12, which ostensibly prohibits social media companies from restricting their users’ speech.
“We need to recognize in Texas, maybe particularly in Texas, we see that the First Amendment is under assault by the social media companies and that is not going to be tolerated in Texas,” said Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in support of the bill.
The First Amendment is not under assault by social media companies. On the contrary, the First Amendment defends the free speech rights of private entities—like social media companies—against restrictive government action, like this bill. It would be more accurate to say that the First Amendment is under assault by the Texas legislature. A private company deciding what kind of speech it allows on its platform is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment protects from government interference.
If that were not enough, the bill has two massive flaws, one of which might render it entirely pointless.
First, the bill defines its terms very broadly: It would prohibit any large social media company (more than 100 million monthly users) from restricting content because of the expressed viewpoint. “An interactive computer service may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person,” the bill reads.
Practically speaking, this could prohibit Facebook and Twitter from taking action against content that is harmful, abusive, or spammy. Facebook’s News Feed algorithm makes choices about what kind of content to prioritize, and the platform occasionally opts to limit the reach of some posts—conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, or COVID-19, for instance. The bill would appear to interfere with the day-to-day runnings of the site in very basic ways. It could even force social media sites to take away moderation options from users.
“YouTube and Facebook allow page managers to remove content posted on their community pages,” noted Steve DelBianco, president of the trade association NetChoice, in his comments about the bill. “This empowers content creators to curate their pages to suit community interests. However, platforms and websites might remove this capability, since it invites expensive litigation under SB 12.”
If that weren’t good enough reason to oppose the bill, it also contains a section that appears to render the entire thing obsolete: “This chapter does not prohibit an interactive computer service from censoring expression that the interactive computer service is specifically authorized to censor by federal law.”
Under a federal law known as Section 230, social media companies cannot be held liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” In other words, federal law already gives social media companies every right to restrict users’ content, and Texas’ bill—as written—bows to federal law.
(Read more at Reason.com)
Maybe it is time for states to start asserting their preeminence over the federal government. It was the states that created the federal government (not the other way around).
With all due deference to President Lincoln, we in Texas don’t like running a liberal ship into the ground — and that is just what New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. seem intent on doing. Therefore, we conservative states need to chart another course and dare the demented people up North to try to hold us down.
Mike Lindell touts a new social media platform that will handle over a billion users
The Epoch Times reports that Mike Lindell, CEO and founder of MyPillow, has announced the formation of a social media platform.
The forthcoming social media website from MyPillow’s Mike Lindell will be able to handle more than a billion users, Lindell said this week.
“I believe it will handle upwards of a billion. If it doesn’t, we will get to that capacity. I don’t think that’s exaggerated, by any means,” Lindell told The Epoch Times.
“It’s going to be the safest, secure platform. I built it expecting to be attacked.”
The platform, dubbed Frank, has a landing page but isn’t operational yet.
Lindell told The Epoch Times’ affiliate NTD on March 11 that the website would be up and running within two weeks.
The current plan is to launch as soon as April 5, but no later than April 12.
“The only reason for the delay is, I actually added six more servers in another location. I really want redundancy, so I’ve got three different U.S. locations and another hidden one. So I’ve got—if anybody went out there to physically damage my stuff, I wanted a fourth location, so that was very important to me,” Lindell told The Epoch Times.
Frank is described as a mix of YouTube and Twitter. The core idea is free speech, according to Lindell, who was banned by Twitter in January for violations of the platform’s Civic Integrity Policy and has said he’s been harmed by actions from Google.
(Read more at The Epoch Times)
This allows us the opportunity to use our feet to vote rather than using the change of law
Just like when I moved to Parler, I will move to both Mike Lindell’s and President Trump’s new platforms. However, I think that (instead of using these platforms as supplements to Facebook and Twitter — the latter of which cut my followership by thousands before I quit) I will use these primarily.
Just to mock Facebook and Instagram, here is the Trump interview those platforms banned in Joe Biden’s America
Here is the video banned by Instagram and Facebook
The following video is available in its entirety on Rumble.
Not only does the NYT buy ink by the barrel, they buy politicians
Corporate media legislation is “bait and switch to strangle conservative outlets”
Breitbart quotes Ken Blackwell as he outlines how the corporate media has worked with Democrat leaders to craft legislation that will drive out the competition.
Former Ohio state treasurer and secretary of state Ken Blackwell described a bill backed by corporate media giants currently making its way through Congress as “a bait-and-switch attempt that claims to help conservative news sources but would instead purge them from the marketplace of ideas.”
Blackwell took aim at the proposed legislation, known as the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act of 2019 (JCPA), in an op-ed in the American Thinker.
As Breitbart News’s Allum Bokhari reported, the JCPA is deceptively titled because instead of promoting “competition,” the bill in its current form would “cement the advantage of the establishment and corporate media at the expense of its competitors” by giving “Big Media companies a special exemption from antitrust law, allowing them to form a cartel that would, under normal circumstances, be illegal to create.”
“Furthermore, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the bigger media companies from excluding smaller companies from the cartel,” Bokhari added. “If passed, there would be nothing to stop the formation of a cartel that includes CNN, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other big companies, while excluding smaller competitors in the independent media — not to mention local newspapers. Such a cartel would secure favorable rates for the former while leaving the latter in the dust.”
Blackwell’s op-ed offers similar criticism of the bill. He explains that it would not only grant big media companies an exemption from federal antitrust laws, but it would also allow them to “operate in a coordinated fashion to negotiate prices that social media companies like Facebook would have to pay them to carry their content. It would ensure that these tech billionaires would have to direct some of their riches into content providers.”
“But that’s a Big Boys’ game, where the major players could decide whom to let into their club. Smaller outlets would be left out in the cold, and the market would suffer,” Blackwell writes.
(Read three central paragraphs of Blackwell quote at Breitbart)
America needs to remain a country where the little guy can thrive
Oddly, under the Democrat socialist politicians, America is becoming a nation of Nazi-eque melding of big business and government.
You must be logged in to post a comment.