One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

  • Throwaway@lemm.eeEnglish
    310·
    1 year ago

    That’s a good idea, but I still think big sites are public spaces at this point.

    • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
      62·
      1 year ago

      “Publicly-accessible private space” and “public space” are two legally-distinct things. In a public town square, you have first amendment rights. In a shopping mall*, your speech and behavior are restricted. This is similar in that regard. Both are publicly-accessible, but one is private property and can be subject to the rules of the property owner.

      Edit: *not applicable to certain behaviors or speech in Californian malls

        • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          You should read the link you posted:

          This holding was possible because California’s constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution’s First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech.

          So my analogy wouldn’t apply to Californian shopping malls, but it would to others, and it would apply federally.

          • Throwaway@lemm.eeEnglish
            25·
            1 year ago

            Well damn, I got hasty.

            I still think it really should apply federally, but it doesn’t.