Free speech? What are those?
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
264 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
69449 readers
3879 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Another waste of our time and money. It's a bill to try and force companies to remove content they don't like...or else.
This will be shot down in court (again), and since the platforms themselves will be responsible for removing content, will not be forced to comply. It's unconstitutional and unenforceable, so just a big ass waste of everyone's fucking time. So dumb.
Even progressive darlen AOC voted for this bullshit. You know who won't Sanders.
You’re assuming the courts will shoot it down. That’s a big assumption these days.
Show me one case where a judge has ruled an unconstitutional thing is suddenly constitutional in all these court cases. Even SCOTUS isnt playing that game.
When they ruled he has immunity. And in may well hear the supreme courts ruling on the legitimacy of the fourteenth amendment. Then there’s Eileen Cannon.
At least two members of SCOTUS are definitely playing that game
Two members that know what would happen to them if they fracture codified law and intentionally do not. 300 million of us vs thousands in government.
Well not 300 million of us, since seemingly every registered Republican in the nation is also ecstatic about tearing the constitution to pieces. And they’re nearly the only ones among us who actually choose to own guns and have the capacity to actually do anything about it.
Allowing trump to run again after inciting an insurrection?
Again, not been a court case. If he tries, it will be shot down. There is no wiggle room for bullshit in the constitution about this.
Yes there has been a court case, Colorado didn't want to put Trump on the ballot because of the insurrection clause, it went up to the supreme Court and they said it was A-OK.
Banning abortion?
Not in the constitution. That was a Supreme Court judgement (Roe v Wade) that was overturned.
Roe v Wade determined that the right to privacy was in the Constitution (due process clause of 4th Amendment) and that Texas laws restricting it were unconstitutional.
States restricting abortion was the unconstitutional thing which was suddenly Constitutional again after Dobbs.
Yes, that is how Supreme Court decisions work. Did you imagine that once a thing was ruled unconstitutional, or vice versa, that it could never be reversed?
No, I didn't imagine that.
Did you read the direct thread to my comment?
So how would this work with the fediverse? Like we federate all content...its going to be VERY difficult to do anything if political content creators keep being told to take it down.
It doesnt work. Literally unenforceable outside of traditional walled gardens.
Wow. If the fediverse is only operable by meta's instance inside the USA, I'm really going to miss everyone, because I'm just not, with meta.
No, it's worse than that. It's impossible to meet the standards set in this and other bills of it's type without having a shortlist of curated, controlled people creating online content. That's literally the point, keeping people from interesting with information they deem unsavory.
That said, it is impossible to enforce unless they want to set up the great firewall of america.
basically only Right wing propaganda is allowed.
so we create a walled garden of our own.
can't complain if the public can't view it.
someone takes screenshots of the problematic content and shares it? well they're in trouble for posting/sharing problematic content.
such as reddit, we already know they have been doing it at the behest of the gop since '16