Moved SCOTUS - Social Media - First Amendment

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html

While the article seemed to imply confusion, it sounds like a 7-2 decision in favor of social media... in that social media companies can moderate their content.

What I find absurd, however, is how this hypothetical is being talked about as if it were something that was actually happening... ie... social media companies are censoring conservatives.

Blatant misinformation was censored at times, but that has been about it. Trump got banned for egging on a riot at the US Capitol Building... and conservatives... well... it is really too depressing to continue there.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Meanwhile, conservatives and mostly conservative groups/thinktanks take advantage of the software that does most of the actual censoring and constantly get pages shutdown, restricted, or put in timeout simply by spamming the system with reports, even if the material is actually true and not at all inflammatory, because liberals are the snowflakes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course they didn't regulate social media. They realized that any such rule would hit their disinformation efforts far more than it would hit the liberals.

 

[TomC]

Of course they didn't regulate social media. They realized that any such rule would hit their disinformation efforts far more than it would hit the liberals.

While I understand that, I don't think it's the most important part of the problem.

The media has developed technology that simply doesn't fit our old moral principles or ethical codes. "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." used to be reasonably clear. There were exceptions like libel and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but they were the small and clear exceptions. The modern media is far more complex than the authors of the 1st Amendment could imagine.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course they didn't regulate social media. They realized that any such rule would hit their disinformation efforts far more than it would hit the liberals.

While I understand that, I don't think it's the most important part of the problem.

The media has developed technology that simply doesn't fit our old moral principles or ethical codes. "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." used to be reasonably clear. There were exceptions like libel and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but they were the small and clear exceptions. The modern media is far more complex than the authors of the 1st Amendment could imagine.
Tom

Yeah. I'm thinking perhaps the answer is twofold:

1) Prohibit misrepresented speech. You don't have to identify yourself but you can't lie about it, either. Think about the Stolen Valor issues--apply the same standard to any claimed credential, not merely military ones. And that would include "human". Bots are perfectly permissible but aren't allowed to do things like check a "I am human" box or otherwise claim to be a human.

2) More civil accountability for harmful speech. Those harmed by a disinformation campaign can sue the major actors of that campaign without having to prove that a specific actor did a specific thing that caused harm. You don't get to rely on dilution as a shield--treat it like conspiracy. And you don't have to prove collaboration, merely that they were working to the same objective.

 

[Bomb#20]

2) More civil accountability for harmful speech. Those harmed by a disinformation campaign can sue the major actors of that campaign without having to prove that a specific actor did a specific thing that caused harm. You don't get to rely on dilution as a shield--treat it like conspiracy. And you don't have to prove collaboration, merely that they were working to the same objective.

Who guards the guards? What's a disinformation campaign? The sitting government will inevitably attempt to define openly disagreeing with the government as a disinformation campaign, and the dispute over whether it is or not will be adjudicated in a government court.

Back when Roe v Wade was still the law of the land, Texas made getting an abortion civilly actionable, in order to create a legal fiction that the suppression of abortion was legal because it was being perpetrated by private citizens rather than by a government bound by Roe v Wade. I.e., it was the extraordinary rendition theory of reproductive rights. Likewise, I suspect what you are proposing would be used to subject free speech rights to extraordinary rendition. What the government may not do itself, it may not contract out to private parties.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) More civil accountability for harmful speech. Those harmed by a disinformation campaign can sue the major actors of that campaign without having to prove that a specific actor did a specific thing that caused harm. You don't get to rely on dilution as a shield--treat it like conspiracy. And you don't have to prove collaboration, merely that they were working to the same objective.

Who guards the guards? What's a disinformation campaign? The sitting government will inevitably attempt to define openly disagreeing with the government as a disinformation campaign, and the dispute over whether it is or not will be adjudicated in a government court.

Back when Roe v Wade was still the law of the land, Texas made getting an abortion civilly actionable, in order to create a legal fiction that the suppression of abortion was legal because it was being perpetrated by private citizens rather than by a government bound by Roe v Wade. I.e., it was the extraordinary rendition theory of reproductive rights. Likewise, I suspect what you are proposing would be used to subject free speech rights to extraordinary rendition. What the government may not do itself, it may not contract out to private parties.

You would still have to prevail in court showing the information to be false and that you were harmed by said false information. I'm not talking about garbage like SB8 which is designed to flood the legal system without recourse. And, like with defamation, it being true would be an absolute defense. Think of the tobacco settlement--harm (lung cancer etc) from disinformation (the efforts to pretend that cigarettes are not addictive), that the tobacco company participated in that disinformation but it wasn't required to tie any given victim to any given tobacco company. (I am opposed to the tobacco settlement because it is effectively a sin tax and sin taxes end up perpetuating the sin. That's a problem with how it's structured, not with the concept.)

My child died of measles because they couldn't be vaccinated and all the anti-vax disinformation lead to an immunization rate below herd immunity and thus my child was infected in an outbreak. You would have to prove harm (dead child) and that the information was false (let's say vaccines cause autism), but wouldn't have to prove which of the prominent anti-vaxxers caused it, merely that they were a major promoter of such falsehoods.

 

[Bomb#20]

Who guards the guards? What's a disinformation campaign? The sitting government will inevitably attempt to define openly disagreeing with the government as a disinformation campaign, and the dispute over whether it is or not will be adjudicated in a government court.

Back when Roe v Wade was still the law of the land, Texas made getting an abortion civilly actionable, in order to create a legal fiction that the suppression of abortion was legal because it was being perpetrated by private citizens rather than by a government bound by Roe v Wade. I.e., it was the extraordinary rendition theory of reproductive rights. Likewise, I suspect what you are proposing would be used to subject free speech rights to extraordinary rendition. What the government may not do itself, it may not contract out to private parties.

You would still have to prevail in court showing the information to be false and that you were harmed by said false information. I'm not talking about garbage like SB8 which is designed to flood the legal system without recourse. And, like with defamation, it being true would be an absolute defense. Think of the tobacco settlement--harm (lung cancer etc) from disinformation (the efforts to pretend that cigarettes are not addictive), that the tobacco company participated in that disinformation but it wasn't required to tie any given victim to any given tobacco company. (I am opposed to the tobacco settlement because it is effectively a sin tax and sin taxes end up perpetuating the sin. That's a problem with how it's structured, not with the concept.)

My child died of measles because they couldn't be vaccinated and all the anti-vax disinformation lead to an immunization rate below herd immunity and thus my child was infected in an outbreak. You would have to prove harm (dead child) and that the information was false (let's say vaccines cause autism), but wouldn't have to prove which of the prominent anti-vaxxers caused it, merely that they were a major promoter of such falsehoods.

If that's autobiographical rather than a hypothetical scenario, I'm very sorry about what happened to your child. You'd need to prove a good deal more, though, going by the cigarette lawsuit standard. The AGs who took down Philip Morris et al. had to prove not just that big tobacco made false claims, but also that they knew the claims were false, and that they lied to make money, and that the people their product harmed were their own customers. All that is what made it fraud, and the First Amendment doesn't protect fraud. But as far as I'm aware the anti-vax idiots believe their own nonsense and aren't peddling a competing product.

Contrariwise, if you're proposing lowering the proof requirements, you're going to have juries deciding which opinions on controversial scientific questions are up for debate -- questions they aren't qualified to judge for themselves, so they'll have to decide which expert witness to trust, in an environment where experts who disagree with the government are likely to be afraid to testify since that could open them up to the same liability. People who call out the endless drug war lies would probably get sued by the relatives of somebody who overdosed in the government-created opioid crisis. In contrast, people who sue because their relatives committed suicide because the DEA extorted their doctors to cut off their chronic pain medication would no doubt get their cases tossed out on "qualified immunity" grounds. The government protects its own.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course they didn't regulate social media. They realized that any such rule would hit their disinformation efforts far more than it would hit the liberals.

While I understand that, I don't think it's the most important part of the problem.

The media has developed technology that simply doesn't fit our old moral principles or ethical codes. "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." used to be reasonably clear. There were exceptions like libel and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but they were the small and clear exceptions. The modern media is far more complex than the authors of the 1st Amendment could imagine.
Tom

Yeah. I'm thinking perhaps the answer is twofold:

1) Prohibit misrepresented speech. You don't have to identify yourself but you can't lie about it, either. Think about the Stolen Valor issues--apply the same standard to any claimed credential, not merely military ones. And that would include "human". Bots are perfectly permissible but aren't allowed to do things like check a "I am human" box or otherwise claim to be a human.

I thought "stolen valor" was decriminalized by the Supreme Court.

Our big problem is "AI generated misattributed documentation". Speech, pictures, etc... it must be labeled AI or it is a felony to disseminate it as real. The trouble is, once it is out there "I thought it was real". We're fucked really. Once it is beyond the source, there is no way to control it, other than creating a law requiring software developers to label any AI with an AI stamp of some sort. And that, if from overseas, won't do anything. We could have the major parties agree to not use AI generated material and to have an understanding with PACs not to, but how is that enforceable?

So what we actually have to do is be ready for most Americans believing whatever the heck they see, regardless how fake it is.

 

[ZiprHead]

AI-generated images of Trump with Black voters being spread by supporters

No evidence to tie fake images, including one created by Florida radio host, to Trump campaign, BBC Panorama investigation finds

www.theguardian.com

Dozens of fake, artificial intelligence-generated photos showing Donald Trump with Black people are being spread by his supporters, according to a new investigation.

BBC Panorama reported that the images appear to be created by supporters themselves. There is no evidence tying the photos to Trump’s campaign.

One photo was created by the Florida-based conservative radio show host Mark Kaye.

“I’m not out there taking pictures of what’s really happening. I’m a storyteller,” Kaye told BBC. “I’m not claiming it is accurate. I’m not saying, ‘Hey, look, Donald Trump was at this party with all of these African American voters. Look how much they love him.’”

Artificial intelligence has already caused problems in the 2024 election campaign, with robocalls that used AI to mimic Joe Biden’s voice urging voters not to vote in the New Hampshire primaries.

 

[bilby]

So what we actually have to do is be ready for most Americans believing whatever the heck they see, regardless how fake it is.

In other words, business as usual.

 

[Shadowy Man]

AI-generated images of Trump with Black voters being spread by supporters

No evidence to tie fake images, including one created by Florida radio host, to Trump campaign, BBC Panorama investigation finds

www.theguardian.com

Dozens of fake, artificial intelligence-generated photos showing Donald Trump with Black people are being spread by his supporters, according to a new investigation.

BBC Panorama reported that the images appear to be created by supporters themselves. There is no evidence tying the photos to Trump’s campaign.

One photo was created by the Florida-based conservative radio show host Mark Kaye.

“I’m not out there taking pictures of what’s really happening. I’m a storyteller,” Kaye told BBC. “I’m not claiming it is accurate. I’m not saying, ‘Hey, look, Donald Trump was at this party with all of these African American voters. Look how much they love him.’”

So exactly what is he saying?

If someone made an AI-generated image of Trump on a bed with hookers pissing on him would Kaye be just as ok with the idea that it wasn’t being claimed as accurate?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

AI-generated images of Trump with Black voters being spread by supporters

No evidence to tie fake images, including one created by Florida radio host, to Trump campaign, BBC Panorama investigation finds

www.theguardian.com

Dozens of fake, artificial intelligence-generated photos showing Donald Trump with Black people are being spread by his supporters, according to a new investigation.

BBC Panorama reported that the images appear to be created by supporters themselves. There is no evidence tying the photos to Trump’s campaign.

One photo was created by the Florida-based conservative radio show host Mark Kaye.

“I’m not out there taking pictures of what’s really happening. I’m a storyteller,” Kaye told BBC. “I’m not claiming it is accurate. I’m not saying, ‘Hey, look, Donald Trump was at this party with all of these African American voters. Look how much they love him.’”

Artificial intelligence has already caused problems in the 2024 election campaign, with robocalls that used AI to mimic Joe Biden’s voice urging voters not to vote in the New Hampshire primaries.

Isn't there a saying about an unspecified number of words and a picture? These people are utterly shameless.

I never said this happened, I just intentionally created this picture and shared it online because people like when I make completely unbelievable images.

 

[ZiprHead]

They said Trump just had his motorcade pull over so he could have a chat with some homeys.

 

[TomC]

They said Trump just had his motorcade pull over so he could have a chat with some homeys.

Why are they all dudes?
Is Trump gay?
Tom

"Black men are very well endowed. Yuuuge! Everyone says so.
Including me!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who guards the guards? What's a disinformation campaign? The sitting government will inevitably attempt to define openly disagreeing with the government as a disinformation campaign, and the dispute over whether it is or not will be adjudicated in a government court.

Back when Roe v Wade was still the law of the land, Texas made getting an abortion civilly actionable, in order to create a legal fiction that the suppression of abortion was legal because it was being perpetrated by private citizens rather than by a government bound by Roe v Wade. I.e., it was the extraordinary rendition theory of reproductive rights. Likewise, I suspect what you are proposing would be used to subject free speech rights to extraordinary rendition. What the government may not do itself, it may not contract out to private parties.

You would still have to prevail in court showing the information to be false and that you were harmed by said false information. I'm not talking about garbage like SB8 which is designed to flood the legal system without recourse. And, like with defamation, it being true would be an absolute defense. Think of the tobacco settlement--harm (lung cancer etc) from disinformation (the efforts to pretend that cigarettes are not addictive), that the tobacco company participated in that disinformation but it wasn't required to tie any given victim to any given tobacco company. (I am opposed to the tobacco settlement because it is effectively a sin tax and sin taxes end up perpetuating the sin. That's a problem with how it's structured, not with the concept.)

My child died of measles because they couldn't be vaccinated and all the anti-vax disinformation lead to an immunization rate below herd immunity and thus my child was infected in an outbreak. You would have to prove harm (dead child) and that the information was false (let's say vaccines cause autism), but wouldn't have to prove which of the prominent anti-vaxxers caused it, merely that they were a major promoter of such falsehoods.

If that's autobiographical rather than a hypothetical scenario, I'm very sorry about what happened to your child. You'd need to prove a good deal more, though, going by the cigarette lawsuit standard. The AGs who took down Philip Morris et al. had to prove not just that big tobacco made false claims, but also that they knew the claims were false, and that they lied to make money, and that the people their product harmed were their own customers. All that is what made it fraud, and the First Amendment doesn't protect fraud. But as far as I'm aware the anti-vax idiots believe their own nonsense and aren't peddling a competing product.

Hypothetical. I have never been party to a conception, let alone lost a child. I'm saying that we should change the law to permit group responsibility in such situations. I care about the first part of your conditions: knew they were false. The second part: change that to "for gain". Third part: that's what I want to do away with.

And while your rank and file guys believe the crap that doesn't mean the people at the top who keep fabricating things do.

Contrariwise, if you're proposing lowering the proof requirements, you're going to have juries deciding which opinions on controversial scientific questions are up for debate -- questions they aren't qualified to judge for themselves, so they'll have to decide which expert witness to trust, in an environment where experts who disagree with the government are likely to be afraid to testify since that could open them up to the same liability. People who call out the endless drug war lies would probably get sued by the relatives of somebody who overdosed in the government-created opioid crisis. In contrast, people who sue because their relatives committed suicide because the DEA extorted their doctors to cut off their chronic pain medication would no doubt get their cases tossed out on "qualified immunity" grounds. The government protects its own.

Huh? Fundamentally, I'm only asking for group (by a waddle-and-quack standard, no need to prove actual cooperation) liability, like we do with conspiracies.