Aggregator

As so-called "conservatives" (a decently large number of them appearing to actually be white supremacists and bigots engaged in harassment) complained Big Tech was slanted against them, a host of new services arrived to meet the sudden demand. Gab, Gettr, etc. hit the marketplace of ideas, promising freedom from the "censorship" of "liberal" social media platforms, ignoring evidence that indicated "conservatives" weren't actually being "censored," but rather extremists calling themselves "conservatives" were being booted for multiple violations of site policies.

New services arrived, promising unabridged speech and a safe space for bigots, transphobes, disgruntled MAGAts, and everyone else who felt oppressed because they frequently went asshole on main. But as soon as these sites debuted, they began moderating all sorts of speech, starting with the clearly illegal and ramping things up to eject trolls and critics.

Moderation at scale remains impossible. And it's not much easier when you're dealing with thousands of users rather than millions or billions. Decisions need to be made. While it was clear to see the upstarts were unfamiliar with the moderation issues bigger platforms have struggled with for years, it was also clear to see the upstarts were more than happy to "censor" speech they didn't like, despite claiming to be the last bastions of online free speech.

"You're free to say whatever you want," platforms like Gab and Gettr proclaimed, muttering asterisks under their breath. You were indeed free to say what you wanted, but that would not prevent your content or your account being banned, deleted, etc.

Gettr has experienced the growing pains of platform moderation. This has happened despite its initial guarantees (*offer void pretty much everywhere) that it would only remove illegal content. Porn is not illegal, yet Gettr seemed to have a problem with all the porn being posted by users, perhaps because a majority of it involved animated animals.

It also had problems keeping trolls from impersonating the illustrious conservative figures it hoped to host exclusively. Aggressive trolling resulted in Gettr temporarily banning Roger Stone's actual account under the assumption it couldn't possibly be the real Roger Stone. It followed this up a few months later by banning the term "groyper" in an effort to limit the amount of white supremacist content it had to host. This too was somewhat of a failure. First, it told white supremacists their awful (but not illegal) speech wasn't welcome on the "free speech" alternative to Twitter. Then it became apparent the ban on "groyper" could be easily evaded by adding an o or two.

Now, there's even more "censorship" to be had at Gettr. One of its financial backers is Guo Wengui, a (former) billionaire and supposed anti-communist who recently filed for bankruptcy. There are reasons to believe Wengui isn't the most trustworthy of online associates. Wengui left China and has spent several years living in a New York City hotel overlooking Central Park. He has applied for asylum but has yet to be granted this request. Despite apparently distancing himself from China, he is still hounded by claims that he's only in the US to obtain information he can deliver to the Chinese government. These allegations were made by Strategic Vision US during a lawsuit over business dealings the company had with Wengui.

Strategic Vision said it concluded Mr. Guo was seeking information on Chinese nationals who may have been helping the U.S. government in national-security investigations or who were involved in other sensitive matters, according to the filing.

“Guo never intended to use the fruits of Strategic Vision’s research against the Chinese Communist Party,” the court filing said. “That is because Guo was not the dissident he claimed to be. Instead, Guo Wengui was, and is, a dissident-hunter, propagandist, and agent in the service of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party.”

Others have echoed this allegation. While it has yet to be proven true, Gettr is insulating its bankrupted backer from online criticism by deleting content that insinuates Wengui is a Chinese spy.

Journalists at the Daily Beast spent a few days running accounts on Gettr to see if the "free speech" site had a problem with criticizing Wengui. Unsurprisingly, the "we won't censor" platform engages in plenty of moderation when it comes to speech it doesn't like.

In an attempt to test the claims that even so much as mentioning the allegations of Guo being a “spy” would result in a permanent suspension from the platform, The Daily Beast created six separate Gettr accounts critical of Guo over the past two weeks.

These accounts posted variations on the question of whether the platform’s billionaire benefactor is a “Chinese spy.” For example, one of the accounts asked, “Does Chinese spy Miles Guo fund Gettr?” It was banned from the platform just 19 minutes after its creation. “Guo a spy??” another Daily Beast-operated account asked in response to a post from the businessman.

All six accounts were promptly banned, with 83 minutes being the longest span of time a single critical post remained live. They were banned without notice of wrongdoing or explanation for the permanent suspensions.

The hypocritical chickens have come home to roost. You're free to run your mouth on Gettr with copious exceptions. And one of those exceptions is the repeating allegations about someone who put some money into Gettr. Meanwhile, over on Twitter, users are free to insinuate the company's principals and backers are in bed with the Chinese government without running afoul of the terms of service.

Gettr will undoubtedly continue to pretend it's a free speech champion, even as it engages in actions that show it's really no more protective of speech than any other platform. It will continue to disappoint refugees from other, more heavily-trafficked social media platforms by engaging in (completely lawful!) moderation of speech it would rather not see on its platform. And while it may be more inviting of general harassment of people with alternative viewpoints (which is generally a lot less fun in Gettr's echo chamber) and election/COVID misinformation, it sees absolutely nothing wrong with silencing dissent and criticism. Its promises of a social media Wild West are as empty as its promises to give Twitter users a better place to express their "conservative" views.

Aspiring filmmakers, YouTubers, bloggers, and business owners alike can find something to love about the Complete Video Production Super Bundle. Video content is fast changing from the future marketing tool to the present, and in these 10 courses you'll learn how to make professional videos on any budget. From the absolute basics to the advanced shooting and lighting techniques of the pros, you'll be ready to start making high-quality video content and driving viewers to it in no time. This bundle will teach you how to make amazing videos, whether you use a smartphone, webcam, DSLR, mirrorless, or professional camera. It's on sale for $35.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

A regulatory filing lists the new investment fund's total offering as $100 million and states its first sale has yet to occur.

A St. Louis man was sentenced Friday to 10-years in prison for a deadly shooting at a market in 2018

Based on a true story from 1977 in Indianapolis, Hamm plays local radio reporter who is taken hostage by a man who wants to be interviewed on the air.

Danielle C. Fischer was arrested at her home in Edwardsville after a search warrant was executed.

Ascension, the St. Louis-based Catholic nonprofit health system, has inked a three-year deal with a professional league for a new event to be held in conjunction with the Ascension Charity Classic, a PGA Tour Champions tournament that launched in 2021.

Havana native Tamara Landeiro recently opened a brick-and-mortar location of her popular Cuban restaurant.

These locally made mustards have been known to convert even the condiment’s top critics.

The St. Louis chef shares three cookbooks that offer a taste of his native Bosnia.

George Thorogood and the Destroyers are known for recording memorable versions of other artists' tunes, but frontman George Thorogood has written plenty of memorable songs as well. It's those originals…

Source

A life in TV news wasn’t her original plan, but Samantha Jones discovered a passion for journalism and never looked back.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WMBD) -- Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker confirmed the statewide indoor mask requirement will end Monday, Feb. 28, at 12:01 a.m. The announcement came as statewide hospitalizations fell by 50% and ICU capacity increased by 24%. Illinois’ weekly COVID-19 case rate also saw a 70% decrease. Pritzker previously announced his plan to lift the [...]

President Joe Biden announced Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his nominee to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer Friday.

Planning on going to the Grand Parade? Here's what you need to know!

ST. LOUIS--An Edwardsville, Illinois woman accused earlier this month of multiple charges, including criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual abuse and child pornography, has been indicted by a Madison County grand jury on the charges. Danielle Fischer now faces a total of 12 charges. Police say Fischer was a permanent substitute in the Roxana School [...]

A grand jury charged Danielle Fischer, 29, with sexually abusing a third teen boy while she was his teacher last year.

There's been an unfortunate movement in the US over the last few years to try to argue that social media should be considered "common carriers." Mostly this is coming (somewhat ironically) from the Trumpian wing of grifting victims, who are trying to force websites to carry the speech of trolls and extremists claiming, (against all actual evidence) that there's an "anti-conservative bias" in content moderation on various major websites.

This leads to things like Ohio's bizarre lawsuit that just outright declares Google a "common carrier" and seems to argue that the company cannot "discriminate" in its search results, even though the entire point of search is to rank (i.e., discriminate) between different potential search results to show you which ones it thinks best answer your query.

There is even some movement among (mostly Republican) lawmakers to pass laws that declare Facebook/Google/Twitter to be "common carriers." There's some irony here, in that these very same Republicans spent years demonizing the idea of "common carriers" when the net neutrality debate was happening, and insisting that the entire concept of "common carrier" was socialism. Amusingly (if it weren't so dumb), Republican-proposed bills declaring social media sites common carriers often explicitly carve out broadband providers from the definitions, as if to prove that this is not about any actual principles, and 100% about using the law to punish companies they think don't share their ideological beliefs.

Unfortunately, beyond grandstanding politicians, even some academics are starting to suggest that social media should be treated like common carriers. Beyond the fact that this would almost certainly come back to bite conservatives down the line, there's an even better reason why it makes no sense at all to make social media websites common carriers.

They don't fit any of the underlying characteristics that made common carrier designations necessary in the first place.

While there were other precursor laws having to do with the requirement to offer service if you were "public callings" the concept of "common carriers" is literally tied up in its name: the "carrier" part is important. Common carriers have been about transporting things from point A to point B. Going back to the first use of the direct concept of a must "carry" rule, there's the 1701 case in England of Lane v. Cotton, regarding the failure to deliver mail by the postal service. The court ruled that a postal service should be considered a common carrier, and that there was a legitimate claim "[a]gainst a carrier refusing to carry goods when he has convenience, his wagon not being full."

In the US, the concept of the common carrier comes from the railroads, and the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, and then to communications services with the Communications Act of 1934, and the establishment of an important bifurcation between information services (not common carriers) and telecommunications services which were common carriers.

As you look over time, you'll notice a few important common traits in all historical common carriers:

1. Delivering something (people, cargo, data) from point A to point B
2. Offering a commoditized service (often involving a natural monopoly provider)

In some ways, point (2) is a function of point (1). The delivery from point A to point B is the key point here. Railroads, telegraphs, telephone systems are all in that simple business -- taking people, cargo, data (voice) from point A to point B -- and then having no further ongoing relationship with you.

That's just not the case for social media. Social media, from the very beginning, was about hosting content that you put up. It's not transient, it's perpetual. That, alone, makes a huge difference, especially with regards to the 1st Amendment's freedom of association. It's one thing to say you have to transmit someone's speech from here to there and then have no more to do with it, but it's something else entirely to say "you must host this person's speech forever."

Second, social media is, in no way, a commodified service. Facebook is a very different service from Twitter, as it is from YouTube, as it is from TikTok, as it is from Reddit. They're not interchangeable, nor are they natural monopolies, in which massive capital outlays are required upfront to build redundant architecture. New social networks can be set up without having to install massive infrastructure, and they can be extremely differentiated from every other social network. That's not true of traditional common carriers. Getting from New York to Boston by train is getting from New York to Boston by train.

Finally, even if you did twist yourself around, and ignore all of that, you're still ignoring that even with common carriers, they are able to refuse service to those who violate the rules (which is the reason that any social media bans a user -- for rule violations). Historically, common carriers can reject carriage for someone who does not pay, but also if the goods are deemed "dangerous" or not properly packed. In other words, even with a common carrier, they are able to deny service to someone who does not follow the terms of service.

So, social media does not meet any of the core components of a common carrier. It is hosting content perpetually, not merely transporting data from one point to another in a transient fashion. It is not a commodity service, but often highly differentiated in a world with many different competitors offering very differentiated services. It is not a natural monopoly, in which the high cost of infrastructure buildout would be inefficient for other entrants in the market. And, finally, even if, somehow, you ignored all of that, declaring a social media site a common carrier wouldn't change that they are allowed to ban or otherwise moderate users who fail to abide by the terms of service for the site.

So can we just stop talking about how social media websites should be declared common carriers? It's never made any sense at all.