Texas trying hard to make the whole internet resemble your Email Inbox circa 2005.

[Mihalik]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...law/index.html

Texas being Texas.

They are trying to prohibit social media platforms from doing any type of moderation. In the process read about conservative judges being confused by the difference between an Internet Service Provider and a Website.

Get ready to have everything from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter etc to be spammed by the N word, anti-Semitism, calls for mass murder, gore and dick pics, conspiracy theories and all the trash the internet can produce.

No preference, no parental controls, no rankings, no bans.

Sounds fun. /S

[s_bushido]

Maybe it's their clever way to get social media to shut down. If no one can moderate it, it's going to be incredibly hard to monetize...which means it would be hard to stay afloat.

[Slirith]

Maybe it's their clever way to get social media to shut down. If no one can moderate it, it's going to be incredibly hard to monetize...which means it would be hard to stay afloat.

Hah, they'll just block Texass(typo intended) before it gets to that point.

[Lynarii]

Hah, they'll just block Texass(typo intended) before it gets to that point.

The law in question also makes it illegal to block Texas.

[Kaleredar]

The law in question also makes it illegal to block Texas.

Ehhh can they compel a company to operate services in Texas?

I imagine a mandate of such removal of oversight would, itself, run afoul of various laws in other countries (like those in Europe) that place an emphasis on curtailing the hate speech, misinformation, violence and general sleaze that Texas seeks to allow. And the prospective market in Europe is probably much larger than Texas' market is.

[Kronik85]

If Texas single handedly kills Social Media the world over then well played Texas TBF. What seems more likely is that Social Media just IP bans any connections from Texas and fights that case.

[Lynarii]

Ehhh can they compel a company to operate services in Texas?

I imagine a mandate of such removal of oversight would, itself, run afoul of various laws in other countries (like those in Europe) that place an emphasis on curtailing the hate speech, misinformation, violence and general sleaze that Texas seeks to allow. And the prospective market in Europe is probably much larger than Texas' market is.

Basically the law is set up so to allow people to sue, in Texas, anywhere that blocks a Texas IP. While it may not fly in other countries like Europe, it COULD potentially impact the entire US market, and most major tech companies are either based in the US or have major offices there.

[Fugus]

Basically the law is set up so to allow people to sue, in Texas, anywhere that blocks a Texas IP. While it may not fly in other countries like Europe, it COULD potentially impact the entire US market, and most major tech companies are either based in the US or have major offices there.

No, doesn't work that way. They can sue you for breaking the law in Texas while you have business there. They can't compel you to operate in Texas unless you are some highly regulated utility like the post office.

Walmart could up and pull out of my state of North Carolina right now and so long as they don't do it for illegal reasons, there is nothing we could do about it.

And pulling out of a state to avoid dealing with their regulations is a valid reason.

[Lynarii]

No, doesn't work that way. They can sue you for breaking the law in Texas while you have business there. They can't compel you to operate in Texas unless you are some highly regulated utility like the post office.

Walmart could up and pull out of my state of North Carolina right now and so long as they don't do it for illegal reasons, there is nothing we could do about it.

And pulling out of a state to avoid dealing with their regulations is a valid reason.

That's normally true, but that isn't how this law is designed to work. You mention the post office, they are considered a common carrier, and as such are legally prohibited from discriminating against customers based on location. The Texas law declares that social media companies are common carriers, and therefore attempts to apply the same rules that would bar them from NOT doing business in Texas.

[Elegiac]

That's normally true, but that isn't how this law is designed to work. You mention the post office, they are considered a common carrier, and as such are legally prohibited from discriminating against customers based on location. The Texas law declares that social media companies are common carriers, and therefore attempts to apply the same rules that would bar them from NOT doing business in Texas.

Never thought I'd see Texas trying to make the argument that Twitter and Facebook should be nationalized. Rofl.

Reminder that the entire root of this nonsense is due to conservatives feeling oppressed because they can't say slurs on social media. And they call left wingers snowflakes.

[Finlandia WOAT]

No, doesn't work that way. They can sue you for breaking the law in Texas while you have business there. They can't compel you to operate in Texas unless you are some highly regulated utility like the post office.

Walmart could up and pull out of my state of North Carolina right now and so long as they don't do it for illegal reasons, there is nothing we could do about it.

And pulling out of a state to avoid dealing with their regulations is a valid reason.

PayPal did this when McCrory got his stupid bathroom bill passed, for example

[Fugus]

That's normally true, but that isn't how this law is designed to work. You mention the post office, they are considered a common carrier, and as such are legally prohibited from discriminating against customers based on location. The Texas law declares that social media companies are common carriers, and therefore attempts to apply the same rules that would bar them from NOT doing business in Texas.

Texas can declare social media operating within their states as a common carrier and force them to honor that within their borders, they do not have that authority for those not operating in it.

The Post Office is designated as a common carrier at a NATIONAL level, so it has to follow that at a national level. Texas can't designate something at a national level, it doesn't have that kind of authority.

And even common carriers have limits, the post office can refuse to carry explosives to their destinations or anything else that it considers harmful. Facebook or Twitter, even within their borders could argue that the lies are harmful and point to the January Terrorist attack as proof of just that.

But Texas has no legal authority to force them to operate within Texas if they don't want to.

- - - Updated - - -

PayPal did this when McCrory got his stupid bathroom bill passed, for example

Oh god, I hated McCrory so much, the man tried midnight sessions to strip cooper of all of his authority on the way out trying to rig the system.

[Lynarii]

Texas can declare social media operating within their states as a common carrier and force them to honor that within their borders, they do not have that authority for those not operating in it.

The Post Office is designated as a common carrier at a NATIONAL level, so it has to follow that at a national level. Texas can't designate something at a national level, it doesn't have that kind of authority.

And even common carriers have limits, the post office can refuse to carry explosives to their destinations or anything else that it considers harmful. Facebook or Twitter, even within their borders could argue that the lies are harmful and point to the January Terrorist attack as proof of just that.

But Texas has no legal authority to force them to operate within Texas if they don't want to.

Well, that's why the bill was originally blocked as being patently unconstitutional. Because it is. The problem we have now is that they managed to find a set of judges who had no idea what was being talked about, and seemed to think that what was at issue was that Twitter and Facebook was banning people from the entire internet.

[gondrin]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...law/index.html

Texas being Texas.

They are trying to prohibit social media platforms from doing any type of moderation. In the process read about conservative judges being confused by the difference between an Internet Service Provider and a Website.

Get ready to have everything from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter etc to be spammed by the N word, anti-Semitism, calls for mass murder, gore and dick pics, conspiracy theories and all the trash the internet can produce.

No preference, no parental controls, no rankings, no bans.

Sounds fun. /S

Oh man, back to the days of Napster, GeoCities, MapQuest(no Google Maps), and the largest social media platform of the day, MySpace.

[Fugus]

Well, that's why the bill was originally blocked as being patently unconstitutional. Because it is. The problem we have now is that they managed to find a set of judges who had no idea what was being talked about, and seemed to think that what was at issue was that Twitter and Facebook was banning people from the entire internet.

And while these judges are partisan and willing to violate their oaths for ideological purposes, this is one hill they wouldn't be stupid enough to die on. This would open flood gates in ways that they know could backfire greatly. And also opens the floodgates for California actually forcing companies to do more stuff that they want as well.

The GOP hate laws being applied evenly which is why you keep getting all these fucked up laws that they plan on selectively enforcing and complain about them hurting "The Wrong People" if they are applied even remotely evenly. This is one that they KNOW will be used by both sides.

I open the Supreme Court to fuck around and find out on something as broad as this one.

[Lynarii]

And while these judges are partisan and willing to violate their oaths for ideological purposes, this is one hill they wouldn't be stupid enough to die on. This would open flood gates in ways that they know could backfire greatly. And also opens the floodgates for California actually forcing companies to do more stuff that they want as well.

The GOP hate laws being applied evenly which is why you keep getting all these fucked up laws that they plan on selectively enforcing and complain about them hurting "The Wrong People" if they are applied even remotely evenly. This is one that they KNOW will be used by both sides.

I open the Supreme Court to fuck around and find out on something as broad as this one.

My concern is that the current Supreme Court is very capable of saying that it is okay for Texas to do this, but not okay for California to do the exact same thing.

[gondrin]

That's normally true, but that isn't how this law is designed to work. You mention the post office, they are considered a common carrier, and as such are legally prohibited from discriminating against customers based on location. The Texas law declares that social media companies are common carriers, and therefore attempts to apply the same rules that would bar them from NOT doing business in Texas.

Problem is that only the federal government can declare things common carriers when it comes to interstate stuff. If it is something that operates within their borders, they can call it a common carrier in Texas but cannot compel someone to do business within said state if said business doesn't want to. Facebook/Twitter/etc could easily just block all IP address ranges that are Texas only as they can state they have no footprint within said state.

That also means they would have to try to reroute all traffic so it doesn't go through Texas either.

[Fugus]

My concern is that the current Supreme Court is very capable of saying that it is okay for Texas to do this, but not okay for California to do the exact same thing.

Not on this, there is no way to attempt that and would be challenged almost immediately, this isn't something they could shadow docket as it would be tested over and over again where they would HAVE to give a verdict.

And zero chance of them being able to claim that a single state or even a minority of states has the ability to set federal authority in ways that bypass the Congress, Senate, President and all federal agencies.

[Breccia]

The law in question also makes it illegal to block Texas.

Fun times. They can't do that.

Texas is claiming that you can't ban people for their point of view, even if they break the terms of service. Forcing a company to keep unwelcome speech on it is a First Amendment issue. Twitter (etc) should take this to SCOTUS, and if for some reason it fails, just block Texas and be done with it. Plenty of businesses, including communications businesses, don't do business in Texas.

Basically, Texas is trying to claim that a business is not only forced to do business there, but also, to obey Texas' rules (and we all know how Texas' rules do nothing but make things worse) even if they're not incorporated in Texas. Let's think about what that means. The first thing that leaps to mind is California making a law that prevents any state from having worse emissions than them, and also, to prevent automakers from selling a car to another state they don't sell in California. Same thing, right?

New York has some pretty hefty anti-loan-sharking laws. Maybe those should be made national, too? Basically an end to payday loans coast to coast, by making it illegal to have a loan service in another state that isn't available in New York.

Ooo! Vermont could make a law that says you can't make sell a history textbook which doesn't call out the South for defending slavery, then sue any textbook company that sells a textbook in other places but not Vermont. Also, evolution.

Texas can't do this, and also, Texas doesn't want to do this.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, almost forgot: the Texas law refers only to companies with more than 50 million users.

Texas itself doesn't have 50 million users.

I'd love to hear the argument Texas makes in court that they can make a law that, by its very setup, must automatically apply in places that aren't Texas.

[tehdang]

It looks dead on First Amendment and Section 230 grounds. Some of the law looks dead on vagueness grounds.

Since this is about the preliminary injuction, rather than an actual ruling on the law itself, the final word has not been given at the appeals level.

Unsigned order staying the lower court's judgement, pending appeal. Panel was not unaminous.