Current Events > Texas declares WAR on social media platforms (with 50+M users)

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
wackyteen 05/13/22 9:06:04 PM #1:	https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/tech/texas-hb20-social-media-law/index.html Texas residents can now sue Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for allegedly censoring their content after a federal appeals court sided Wednesday with the states law restricting how social media sites can moderate their platforms. The 15-word ruling allowing the law, which had been blocked last year, to take effect has significant potential consequences. Most immediately, it creates new legal risks for the tech giants, and opens them up to a possible wave of litigation that legal experts say would be costly and difficult to defend Texass law makes it illegal for any social media platform with 50 million or more US monthly users to block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression. The law creates enormous uncertainty about how social media will actually function in Texas, according to legal experts, and raises questions about what users online spaces may look like and what content they may find there, if the companies are even able to run their services at all. The ruling also sets the stage for what could be a Supreme Court showdown over First Amendment rights and, possibly, a dramatic reinterpretation of those rights that affects not just the tech industry but all Americans and decades of established precedent. In short, the decision has allowed Texas to declare open season on tech platforms, with huge ramifications for everyone in the country. It could reshape the rights and obligations of all websites; our relationship to technology and the internet; and even our basic, fundamental understanding of the First Amendment. A controversial law takes effect The origins of Texass law, HB 20, lie in the longstanding Republican criticism that tech platforms discriminate politically against conservative users, a charge the companies have denied and which platform moderation researchers say there is little systemic evidence to support. The law, which seeks to address the perceived imbalance, was blocked in December by a district court judge who ruled it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. That decision came months after a similar law, in Florida, was also blocked for the same reason. But that all changed this week, when in oral arguments at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel confused social media platforms with internet service providers; disputed that Facebook and Twitter are websites; and expressed surprise that a service such as Twitter could just decide what content appears on its platform as a matter of course. The result was Wednesdays decision overturning the lower-court injunction that had kept Texass law from going into effect. The ruling promptly led Texass attorney general Ken Paxton who is also empowered to sue tech companies under HB 20 to declare victory. My office just secured another BIG WIN against BIG TECH, Paxtons office tweeted. The appeals court has not provided a written opinion explaining the decision, and it did not offer the tech advocacy groups who challenged the law time to seek an appeal. Apparently, they do not think this is disruptive or something, said Harold Feld, a senior vice president and communications lawyer at the consumer group Public Knowledge. Whatever happens next, legal experts appear convinced that the outcome will be chaos. Uncharted waters We are now in uncharted waters. For as long as the major US social networks have existed, they have been able to lean on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a liability shield for how platforms handle user-generated content. Section 230 has bailed tech platforms out of many a lawsuit over the years. But the Texas law is poised to change everything. The tech industrys opponents have never had something like HB 20 on their side. The scope of the law is truly vast, according to legal scholars. It is broad both in terms of its text explicitly naming at least nine types of prohibited content moderation as well as its subtext. What does it really mean to de-boost or deny equal visibility? The ambiguity of those terms provides carte blanche to creative plaintiffs willing to stretch the definitions of the English language, according to Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at the US Naval Academy. Just think of all the actions that could be seen as denying equal visibility to user content, Kosseff tweeted. The state law also forces tech companies to fight the same battles over and over again, prohibiting them from citing a successful defense in one court as a way of nipping similar cases in the bud in other courts. Those are all things youd do if you wanted to make litigation as attractive, expensive, and difficult to defend as possible, said Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer better known as @Popehat on Twitter. In theory, Section 230 may still preempt the state law and allow tech platforms to continue to escape liability. But the Fifth Circuit ruling throws much of that in doubt. How social media platforms might respond Supposing the law is not hit with another injunction, social media platforms must now try to figure out how to comply with it, with the knowledge that the litigation is ongoing and things could still change again. What does social media look like in a post-HB 20 world? It isnt obvious. (Facebook and Twitter declined to comment for this story; YouTube didnt respond to a request for comment.) One option for tech platforms is to halt all algorithmic content filtering or ranking entirely. While its tempting to imagine all social media looking like the clean, reverse-chronological feed you can actually find on Twitter today (if you know where to look), that is merely the best-case scenario and not the likeliest one, according to Daphne Keller, a platform liability expert at Stanford University. The reality might look more like email before the advent of spam filters. Because algorithms would be prohibited from removing or down-ranking material, social media platforms would have to host spam, porn, or hate speech indiscriminately an unmoderated garbage dump, as Keller described it in a tweet. That may not protect tech platforms from lawsuits either, however. Thanks to the laws broad language, a plaintiff could try to argue Facebook has silenced a user because her speech is now no longer visible underneath a mountain of spam. In this world, Facebook gets sued no matter what it does: Sued for taking down content and sued for not promoting content. After all, removing algorithmic amplification of some content could itself be seen as a kind of demotion, which is illegal under HB 20, Kosseff told CNN. Who knows! he said, emphasizing how wide open the possibilities are. In the face of all this uncertainty, tech platforms could simply throw up their hands and stop offering services in Texas altogether. But even pulling out of Texas might not save them. Buried in the law is a prohibition on discriminating against Texans based on their geographic location. By withdrawing from Texas, tech companies could expose themselves to allegations they have geographically discriminated against Texans in violation of HB 20. And thats without getting into all the ways people could try to maliciously game the law. With virtual private networks, its trivial for your computer to become a Texan even if your physical body is sitting in Mississippi or Massachusetts. Could someone in those states avail themselves of HB 20 even if they dont live in Texas? As Kosseff might say: Who knows! There's even more. Damn son. --- The name is wackyteen for a reason. Never doubt. <cite>wackyteen posted [p:965018883] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote><quote>https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/tech/texas-hb20-social-media-law/index.html Texas residents can now sue Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for allegedly censoring their content after a federal appeals court sided Wednesday with the states law restricting how social media sites can moderate their platforms. The 15-word ruling allowing the law, which had been blocked last year, to take effect has significant potential consequences. Most immediately, it creates new legal risks for the tech giants, and opens them up to a possible wave of litigation that legal experts say would be costly and difficult to defend Texass law makes it illegal for any social media platform with 50 million or more US monthly users to block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression. The law creates enormous uncertainty about how social media will actually function in Texas, according to legal experts, and raises questions about what users online spaces may look like and what content they may find there, if the companies are even able to run their services at all. The ruling also sets the stage for what could be a Supreme Court showdown over First Amendment rights and, possibly, a dramatic reinterpretation of those rights that affects not just the tech industry but all Americans and decades of established precedent. In short, the decision has allowed Texas to declare open season on tech platforms, with huge ramifications for everyone in the country. It could reshape the rights and obligations of all websites; our relationship to technology and the internet; and even our basic, fundamental understanding of the First Amendment. A controversial law takes effect The origins of Texass law, HB 20, lie in the longstanding Republican criticism that tech platforms discriminate politically against conservative users, a charge the companies have denied and which platform moderation researchers say there is little systemic evidence to support. The law, which seeks to address the perceived imbalance, was blocked in December by a district court judge who ruled it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. That decision came months after a similar law, in Florida, was also blocked for the same reason. But that all changed this week, when in oral arguments at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel confused social media platforms with internet service providers; disputed that Facebook and Twitter are websites; and expressed surprise that a service such as Twitter could just decide what content appears on its platform as a matter of course. The result was Wednesdays decision overturning the lower-court injunction that had kept Texass law from going into effect. The ruling promptly led Texass attorney general Ken Paxton who is also empowered to sue tech companies under HB 20 to declare victory. My office just secured another BIG WIN against BIG TECH, Paxtons office tweeted. The appeals court has not provided a written opinion explaining the decision, and it did not offer the tech advocacy groups who challenged the law time to seek an appeal. Apparently, they do not think this is disruptive or something, said Harold Feld, a senior vice president and communications lawyer at the consumer group Public Knowledge. Whatever happens next, legal experts appear convinced that the outcome will be chaos. Uncharted waters We are now in uncharted waters. For as long as the major US social networks have existed, they have been able to lean on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a liability shield for how platforms handle user-generated content. Section 230 has bailed tech platforms out of many a lawsuit over the years. But the Texas law is poised to change everything. The tech industrys opponents have never had something like HB 20 on their side. The scope of the law is truly vast, according to legal scholars. It is broad both in terms of its text explicitly naming at least nine types of prohibited content moderation as well as its subtext. What does it really mean to de-boost or deny equal visibility? The ambiguity of those terms provides carte blanche to creative plaintiffs willing to stretch the definitions of the English language, according to Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at the US Naval Academy. Just think of all the actions that could be seen as denying equal visibility to user content, Kosseff tweeted. The state law also forces tech companies to fight the same battles over and over again, prohibiting them from citing a successful defense in one court as a way of nipping similar cases in the bud in other courts. Those are all things youd do if you wanted to make litigation as attractive, expensive, and difficult to defend as possible, said Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer better known as @Popehat on Twitter. In theory, Section 230 may still preempt the state law and allow tech platforms to continue to escape liability. But the Fifth Circuit ruling throws much of that in doubt. How social media platforms might respond Supposing the law is not hit with another injunction, social media platforms must now try to figure out how to comply with it, with the knowledge that the litigation is ongoing and things could still change again. What does social media look like in a post-HB 20 world? It isnt obvious. (Facebook and Twitter declined to comment for this story; YouTube didnt respond to a request for comment.) One option for tech platforms is to halt all algorithmic content filtering or ranking entirely. While its tempting to imagine all social media looking like the clean, reverse-chronological feed you can actually find on Twitter today (if you know where to look), that is merely the best-case scenario and not the likeliest one, according to Daphne Keller, a platform liability expert at Stanford University. The reality might look more like email before the advent of spam filters. Because algorithms would be prohibited from removing or down-ranking material, social media platforms would have to host spam, porn, or hate speech indiscriminately an unmoderated garbage dump, as Keller described it in a tweet. That may not protect tech platforms from lawsuits either, however. Thanks to the laws broad language, a plaintiff could try to argue Facebook has silenced a user because her speech is now no longer visible underneath a mountain of spam. In this world, Facebook gets sued no matter what it does: Sued for taking down content and sued for not promoting content. After all, removing algorithmic amplification of some content could itself be seen as a kind of demotion, which is illegal under HB 20, Kosseff told CNN. Who knows! he said, emphasizing how wide open the possibilities are. In the face of all this uncertainty, tech platforms could simply throw up their hands and stop offering services in Texas altogether. But even pulling out of Texas might not save them. Buried in the law is a prohibition on discriminating against Texans based on their geographic location. By withdrawing from Texas, tech companies could expose themselves to allegations they have geographically discriminated against Texans in violation of HB 20. And thats without getting into all the ways people could try to maliciously game the law. With virtual private networks, its trivial for your computer to become a Texan even if your physical body is sitting in Mississippi or Massachusetts. Could someone in those states avail themselves of HB 20 even if they dont live in Texas? As Kosseff might say: Who knows! </quote>There's even more. Damn son. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarthAragorn 05/13/22 9:07:26 PM #2:	Texas trying their hardest to outdo Florida and most of the south for worst shithole in the US --- MSI MEG X570 Unify \| Ryzen 7 5800X \| 32GB DDR4-3600 \| RTX 3080 Samsung Odyssey G7 32" - 1440p, 240hz, GSync <cite>DarthAragorn posted [p:965018907] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Texas trying their hardest to outdo Florida and most of the south for worst shithole in the US </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wackyteen 05/13/22 9:08:40 PM #3:	A possible Supreme Court showdown After Wednesdays decision, the dispute over HB 20 could well end up at the Supreme Court. The groups that challenged HB 20 have at least two obvious options before them: They could turn to the Supreme Court directly, or they could ask for a rehearing in front of a wider panel of appellate judges in hopes of a different outcome which could eventually lead to a Supreme Court appeal anyway. At least one justice, the conservative Clarence Thomas, has previously expressed interest in hearing a case that might allow the Court to rule on the issue of platform liability. A case involving HB 20 would present a ripe opportunity. If that happens, its not a stretch to say that decades of First Amendment precedent may suddenly be on the line. A fundamental question at the heart of the case is whether the state of Texas a government entity is forcing social media companies to host speech with HB 20. This concept of government-compelled speech has long been held unconstitutional under the First Amendment. But a Supreme Court ruling upholding HB 20 may throw that longstanding precedent into doubt. Historic decisions that deal with compelled speech and protections for editorial curation might be substantially narrowed if not overruled in that scenario, said Kosseff. In light of the Courts apparent willingness to overturn decades of precedent in Roe v. Wade, its not difficult to imagine the Court revisiting some of its most basic First Amendment convictions. Then there is the fate of Section 230, the quarter-century-old liability shield. Because Section 230 is a federal law that affirms websites rights to manage their platforms (on top of the First Amendment), a Supreme Court ruling upholding Texass state law could create a conflict, raising questions about federal preemption. Might the Court take this opportunity to curtail or strike down Section 230 in the process? Its anyones guess. Another issue that could have far-reaching consequences involves HB 20s attempt to define social media platforms as common carriers akin to phone companies, railroad operators and electric utilities. Whether you agree social media platforms ought to be considered utilities or not, a finding upholding that classification would give states everywhere a roadmap for regulating online platforms like never before in the history of the internet, with vast implications for the wider digital economy. Of course, its possible the Court may not even attempt to weigh in on some of these issues and simply leaves them unresolved perhaps by giving HB 20 a thumbs-up or thumbs-down using the much-maligned shadow docket, CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck suggested. Depending on how it turns out, this scenario could be the worst of all worlds the legal equivalent of blowing things up and leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces. We're gonna lose the internet at this rate. Thanks conservatives. Fucking sad fucks that can't accept a loss. Pure, unadulterated snowflakes, the lot --- The name is wackyteen for a reason. Never doubt. <cite>wackyteen posted [p:965018933] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote><quote>A possible Supreme Court showdown After Wednesdays decision, the dispute over HB 20 could well end up at the Supreme Court. The groups that challenged HB 20 have at least two obvious options before them: They could turn to the Supreme Court directly, or they could ask for a rehearing in front of a wider panel of appellate judges in hopes of a different outcome which could eventually lead to a Supreme Court appeal anyway. At least one justice, the conservative Clarence Thomas, has previously expressed interest in hearing a case that might allow the Court to rule on the issue of platform liability. A case involving HB 20 would present a ripe opportunity. If that happens, its not a stretch to say that decades of First Amendment precedent may suddenly be on the line. A fundamental question at the heart of the case is whether the state of Texas a government entity is forcing social media companies to host speech with HB 20. This concept of government-compelled speech has long been held unconstitutional under the First Amendment. But a Supreme Court ruling upholding HB 20 may throw that longstanding precedent into doubt. Historic decisions that deal with compelled speech and protections for editorial curation might be substantially narrowed if not overruled in that scenario, said Kosseff. In light of the Courts apparent willingness to overturn decades of precedent in Roe v. Wade, its not difficult to imagine the Court revisiting some of its most basic First Amendment convictions. Then there is the fate of Section 230, the quarter-century-old liability shield. Because Section 230 is a federal law that affirms websites rights to manage their platforms (on top of the First Amendment), a Supreme Court ruling upholding Texass state law could create a conflict, raising questions about federal preemption. Might the Court take this opportunity to curtail or strike down Section 230 in the process? Its anyones guess. Another issue that could have far-reaching consequences involves HB 20s attempt to define social media platforms as common carriers akin to phone companies, railroad operators and electric utilities. Whether you agree social media platforms ought to be considered utilities or not, a finding upholding that classification would give states everywhere a roadmap for regulating online platforms like never before in the history of the internet, with vast implications for the wider digital economy. Of course, its possible the Court may not even attempt to weigh in on some of these issues and simply leaves them unresolved perhaps by giving HB 20 a thumbs-up or thumbs-down using the much-maligned shadow docket, CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck suggested. Depending on how it turns out, this scenario could be the worst of all worlds the legal equivalent of blowing things up and leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces. </quote> We're gonna lose the internet at this rate. Thanks conservatives. Fucking sad fucks that can't accept a loss. Pure, unadulterated snowflakes, the lot </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
uwnim 05/13/22 9:09:41 PM #4:	Oh, so the judges knew literally nothing about what they were ruling on and as a result fucked up? --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:965018959] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote> Oh, so the judges knew literally nothing about what they were ruling on and as a result fucked up? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wackyteen 05/13/22 9:10:28 PM #5:	uwnim posted... Oh, so the judges knew literally nothing about what they were ruling on and as a result fucked up? Welcome to America. Where the people in charge don't know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground --- The name is wackyteen for a reason. Never doubt. <cite>wackyteen posted [p:965018975] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted... </cite> <quote>Oh, so the judges knew literally nothing about what they were ruling on and as a result fucked up?</quote>Welcome to America. Where the people in charge don't know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#6	Post #6 was unavailable or deleted.
uwnim 05/13/22 9:12:50 PM #7:	wackyteen posted... In the face of all this uncertainty, tech platforms could simply throw up their hands and stop offering services in Texas altogether. But even pulling out of Texas might not save them. Buried in the law is a prohibition on discriminating against Texans based on their geographic location. By withdrawing from Texas, tech companies could expose themselves to allegations they have geographically discriminated against Texans in violation of HB 20. This is literally not something Texas has the power to do. Like someone in Texas can't sue a company in like Germany for not providing a service in Texas. --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:965019020] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>wackyteen posted... </cite> <quote>In the face of all this uncertainty, tech platforms could simply throw up their hands and stop offering services in Texas altogether. But even pulling out of Texas might not save them. Buried in the law is a prohibition on discriminating against Texans based on their geographic location. By withdrawing from Texas, tech companies could expose themselves to allegations they have geographically discriminated against Texans in violation of HB 20.</quote>This is literally not something Texas has the power to do. Like someone in Texas can't sue a company in like Germany for not providing a service in Texas. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wackyteen 05/13/22 9:13:09 PM #8:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Likely. If the company has no business (offices, personnel, etc) in Texas then Texas can't really pursue them. --- The name is wackyteen for a reason. Never doubt. <cite>wackyteen posted [p:965019025] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Likely. If the company has no business (offices, personnel, etc) in Texas then Texas can't really pursue them. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
uwnim 05/13/22 9:13:24 PM #9:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out. --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:965019035] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Robot2600 05/13/22 9:15:08 PM #10:	This post is not readable in Texas --- ( o _o) <cite>Robot2600 posted [p:965019083] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>This post is not readable in Texas </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarthAragorn 05/13/22 9:15:53 PM #11:	uwnim posted... No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out. We don't have competent judges anymore, we have partisan hacks --- MSI MEG X570 Unify \| Ryzen 7 5800X \| 32GB DDR4-3600 \| RTX 3080 Samsung Odyssey G7 32" - 1440p, 240hz, GSync <cite>DarthAragorn posted [p:965019093] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted... </cite> <quote>No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out.</quote>We don't have competent judges anymore, we have partisan hacks </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wackyteen 05/13/22 9:16:15 PM #12:	uwnim posted... No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out. "It is not feasible for us to service the State of Texas. Their laws would require us to host porn to children, which goes against our beliefs" Due to the vagueness of their shit law you could interpret that sites have to host adult content since it can't be moderated. Which may be an end goal. "Look! They're showing GAY PORN to YOUR CHILDREN" and use that as justification to ban the large platforms --- The name is wackyteen for a reason. Never doubt. <cite>wackyteen posted [p:965019099] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted... </cite> <quote>No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out.</quote>"It is not feasible for us to service the State of Texas. Their laws would require us to host porn to children, which goes against our beliefs" Due to the vagueness of their shit law you could interpret that sites have to host adult content since it can't be moderated. Which may be an end goal. "Look! They're showing GAY PORN to YOUR CHILDREN" and use that as justification to ban the large platforms </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deutschenlied 05/13/22 9:16:27 PM #13:	Republicans are way too addicted to social media <cite>Deutschenlied posted [p:965019103] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Republicans are way too addicted to social media </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jpenny2 05/13/22 9:16:54 PM #14:	Imagine going to these lengths just to be able to spout hate and harmful misinformation online. --- Fren Code: 2767-3374-3343 \|\| IGN: Penny \|\| TSV: 3067 \|\| Sig NFT I hate sarcasm. I'm also not too fond of irony. \| Permanently banned <cite>jpenny2 posted [p:965019116] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Imagine going to these lengths just to be able to spout hate and harmful misinformation online. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wackyteen 05/13/22 9:18:20 PM #15:	jpenny2 posted... Imagine going to these lengths just to be able to spout hate and harmful misinformation online. It'll be hilarious when it all blows up in their face. --- The name is wackyteen for a reason. Never doubt. <cite>wackyteen posted [p:965019142] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>jpenny2 posted... </cite> <quote>Imagine going to these lengths just to be able to spout hate and harmful misinformation online.</quote>It'll be hilarious when it all blows up in their face. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deutschenlied 05/13/22 9:19:26 PM #16:	Also, they literally want to make social media a public utility before the fucking Internet it runs on is. <cite>Deutschenlied posted [p:965019168] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Also, they literally want to make social media a public utility before the fucking Internet it runs on is. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#17	Post #17 was unavailable or deleted.
Heartomaton 05/13/22 9:20:43 PM #18:	Maaaan... why does my state have to suck so hard? --- https://www.youtube.com/user/Heartomaton Heartomaton for President 2028. <cite>Heartomaton posted [p:965019202] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Maaaan... why does my state have to suck so hard? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
uwnim 05/13/22 9:21:10 PM #19:	Texas should just start their own Social Media platform with the rules they want instead of trying to fuck with shit that isnt their business. --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:965019208] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Texas should just start their own Social Media platform with the rules they want instead of trying to fuck with shit that isnt their business. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheOnionKnight 05/13/22 9:22:05 PM #20:	@spanky1 --- The owls are not what they seem. <cite>TheOnionKnight posted [p:965019232] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>@spanky1</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nexigrams 05/13/22 9:23:05 PM #21:	uwnim posted... No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out. Really? There are no Krispy Kremes in my state, but nobody sues them for discrimination. I don't know how you force a business to expand into territory it doesn't want to/can't afford to. --- http://imgur.com/SYiqIRC <cite>nexigrams posted [p:965019256] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted... </cite> <quote>No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out.</quote> Really? There are no Krispy Kremes in my state, but nobody sues them for discrimination. I don't know how you force a business to expand into territory it doesn't want to/can't afford to. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Strider102 05/13/22 9:28:01 PM #22:	Fuck Texas --- Last Cloudia ID: 188850453 <cite>Strider102 posted [p:965019366] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Fuck Texas </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ScazarMeltex 05/13/22 9:31:21 PM #23:	Hopefully those sites just block users from Texas from using them. --- "If you wish to converse with me define your terms" Voltaire <cite>ScazarMeltex posted [p:965019430] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Hopefully those sites just block users from Texas from using them. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#24	Post #24 was unavailable or deleted.
Strider102 05/13/22 9:32:34 PM #25:	ScazarMeltex posted... Hopefully those sites just block users from Texas from using them. Then they start suing site's for blocking them, which they'd view as censorship. --- Last Cloudia ID: 188850453 <cite>Strider102 posted [p:965019462] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>ScazarMeltex posted... </cite> <quote>Hopefully those sites just block users from Texas from using them.</quote> Then they start suing site's for blocking them, which they'd view as censorship. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheLiarParadox 05/13/22 9:33:23 PM #26:	ScazarMeltex posted... Hopefully those sites just block users from Texas from using them. This is probably what the GOP wants. There's no telling what human rights violations they'll get up to with a social media blackout. --- Spongebob is not a contraceptive. <cite>TheLiarParadox posted [p:965019477] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>ScazarMeltex posted... </cite> <quote>Hopefully those sites just block users from Texas from using them.</quote>This is probably what the GOP wants. There's no telling what human rights violations they'll get up to with a social media blackout. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CaptainStrong 05/13/22 9:36:05 PM #27:	Texas actually did something good for once? <cite>CaptainStrong posted [p:965019554] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Texas actually did something good for once? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Null_Gain 05/13/22 9:55:15 PM #28:	So would a gamefaqs user from Texas be immune to getting modded under this law? --- Switch + 3DS + X1 "Don't steal, stop being ignorant and respect other peoples beliefs." -perthboy on flying a Nazi flag <cite>Null_Gain posted [p:965020021] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>So would a gamefaqs user from Texas be immune to getting modded under this law? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
What_ 05/13/22 9:56:42 PM #29:	Texas: tolerate our intolerance! <cite>What_ posted [p:965020058] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Texas: tolerate our intolerance! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Robot2600 05/13/22 9:56:43 PM #30:	Null_Gain posted... So would a gamefaqs user from Texas be immune to getting modded under this law? no, as we do not have 50 million users. --- ( o _o) <cite>Robot2600 posted [p:965020059] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Null_Gain posted... </cite> <quote>So would a gamefaqs user from Texas be immune to getting modded under this law?</quote> no, as we do not have 50 million users. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Null_Gain 05/13/22 10:05:30 PM #31:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Texas gets the benefit of the doubt because of the substantial mineral wealth that has benefitted Texas in the past and present (drilling, fracking, and the subsequent refining of the products from the two processes) --- Switch + 3DS + X1 "Don't steal, stop being ignorant and respect other peoples beliefs." -perthboy on flying a Nazi flag <cite>Null_Gain posted [p:965020263] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Texas gets the benefit of the doubt because of the substantial mineral wealth that has benefitted Texas in the past and present (drilling, fracking, and the subsequent refining of the products from the two processes) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I4NRulez 05/13/22 10:08:08 PM #32:	I remember when users on here were so convinced that Texas was a bastion of quality compared to California. My how times have changed --- The night brims with defiled scum,and is permeated by their rotten stench. Just think. Now you're all set to hunt and kill to your heart's content. <cite>I4NRulez posted [p:965020325] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>I remember when users on here were so convinced that Texas was a bastion of quality compared to California. My how times have changed </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Turbam 05/13/22 10:10:07 PM #33:	Texans are real fucking weird --- ~snip (V)_(;,;)_(V) snip~ I'm just one man! Whoa! Well, I'm a one man band! https://imgur.com/p9Xvjvs <cite>Turbam posted [p:965020374] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Texans are real fucking weird </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 05/13/22 10:11:50 PM #34:	Texas is so fucking odd It has this big "Don't mess with Texas. States rights. Let us govern ourselves!" then constantly tries to govern every other state, company and the rest of the world. It doesn't seem to understand that isolation means you don't get to dictate what others get to do --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:965020411] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Texas is so fucking odd It has this big "Don't mess with Texas. States rights. Let us govern ourselves!" then constantly tries to govern every other state, company and the rest of the world. It doesn't seem to understand that isolation means you don't get to dictate what others get to do </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VigorouslySwish 05/13/22 10:19:07 PM #35:	There will be no global internet in 10 years, every country will have walled off like China did 20 years ago. --- i'm just some guy yellin' about apple sauce <cite>VigorouslySwish posted [p:965020539] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>There will be no global internet in 10 years, every country will have walled off like China did 20 years ago. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jiek_Fafn 05/13/22 10:19:28 PM #36:	What's with Texas trying to assert its jurisdiction outside of the state? Between this and abortion, it's becoming a trend --- I don't believe in belts. There should be no ranking system for toughness. <cite>Jiek_Fafn posted [p:965020541] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>What's with Texas trying to assert its jurisdiction outside of the state? Between this and abortion, it's becoming a trend </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JimmyFraska 05/14/22 1:39:39 PM #37:	I don't see what's wrong with this <cite>JimmyFraska posted [p:965031920] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>I don't see what's wrong with this </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 05/14/22 1:40:24 PM #38:	JimmyFraska posted... I don't see what's wrong with this You're not as stupid as you pretend to be --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:965031935] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>JimmyFraska posted... </cite> <quote>I don't see what's wrong with this</quote>You're not as stupid as you pretend to be </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsuprised_Pika 05/14/22 2:00:20 PM #39:	We need mandatory technology education for judge. Also for Republicans to stop being paranoid, hateful pathetic babies. <cite>Unsuprised_Pika posted [p:965032340] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>We need mandatory technology education for judge. Also for Republicans to stop being paranoid, hateful pathetic babies. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Robot2600 05/14/22 2:01:24 PM #40:	republicans could just stop everything they are doing in general --- ( o _o) <cite>Robot2600 posted [p:965032362] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>republicans could just stop everything they are doing in general </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#41	Post #41 was unavailable or deleted.
FigureOfSpeech 05/14/22 2:06:44 PM #42:	texas should not be allowed to exist --- Always check timestamps... <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:965032472] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>texas should not be allowed to exist </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CrimsonAngel 05/14/22 2:08:33 PM #43:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] I mean Florida is attacking Disney for stating an opinion --- https://i.imgur.com/5AWjPWT.png <cite>CrimsonAngel posted [p:965032504] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> I mean Florida is attacking Disney for stating an opinion </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deutschenlied 05/14/22 2:13:42 PM #44:	Who knew Republicans hated the free market? I guess the free market only applies when a business refuses to sell a product to a minority. They apparently can't kick you out when you scream slurs and shit on the floor, though. Then it becomes "discrimination against opinions". <cite>Deutschenlied posted [p:965032592] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Who knew Republicans hated the free market? I guess the free market only applies when a business refuses to sell a product to a minority. They apparently can't kick you out when you scream slurs and shit on the floor, though. Then it becomes "discrimination against opinions". </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#45	Post #45 was unavailable or deleted.
IMNOTRAGED 05/14/22 2:53:30 PM #46:	Antifar posted... You're not as stupid as you pretend to be Why do I always get modded when I tell people this. I'm calling racism! --- http://i.imgur.com/kkm3QaD.jpg "Be ruthless with systems; be kind to people." <cite>IMNOTRAGED posted [p:965033388] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite> <quote>You're not as stupid as you pretend to be</quote> Why do I always get modded when I tell people this. I'm calling racism! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZannoL 05/14/22 2:55:34 PM #47:	Texas = trash <cite>ZannoL posted [p:965033423] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Texas = trash </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 05/14/22 2:58:50 PM #48:	uwnim posted... No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out. Texas has no authority to decide what businesses don't do business in Texas. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:965033490] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted... </cite> <quote>No. Because then they get sued for discriminating against texans. This is an absolute nonsense law that any competent judge would throw out.</quote>Texas has no authority to decide what businesses don't do business in Texas. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AmishDoinks420 05/14/22 3:00:14 PM #49:	Damn I used to be ashamed of my home state. Seems like Texas wants to go for gold. Hope the place burns. --- Big doinks in Amish <cite>AmishDoinks420 posted [p:965033513] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>Damn I used to be ashamed of my home state. Seems like Texas wants to go for gold. Hope the place burns. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
spanky1 05/14/22 3:22:49 PM #50:	TheOnionKnight posted... @spanky1 @TheOnionKnight It really does seem like conservatives are getting worse and worse. I mean what do they want these social media sites to be, something like 4chan or the other chans? Just completely unchecked vileness? It feels like there's this sort of recent underlying attitude with these kinds of conservatives that want to watch everything burn, especially any kind of big company. Like, there's a gleefulness, you know? It makes them happy to hurt the likes of Disney for instance. I get that same vibe with this social media law. I mean I'm no fan of soulless corporations or anything, but at the end of the day they're American (well, mostly anyway), and it's just weird to see supposed patriotic conservatives celebrating the downfall of their own country. Like they just want everything to fail or something. --- http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg https://www.deviantart.com/fuee/art/spanky1-811230163 <cite>spanky1 posted [p:965033973] in Texas decl... [t:80020222]...</cite> <quote>TheOnionKnight posted...</cite> <quote>@spanky1</quote> @TheOnionKnight It really does seem like conservatives are getting worse and worse. I mean what do they want these social media sites to be, something like 4chan or the other chans? Just completely unchecked vileness? It feels like there's this sort of recent underlying attitude with these kinds of conservatives that want to watch everything burn, especially any kind of big company. Like, there's a gleefulness, you know? It makes them happy to hurt the likes of Disney for instance. I get that same vibe with this social media law. I mean I'm no fan of soulless corporations or anything, but at the end of the day they're American (well, mostly anyway), and it's just weird to see supposed patriotic conservatives celebrating the downfall of their own country. Like they just want everything to fail or something.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Texas declares WAR on social media platforms (with 50+M users) (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Texas declares WAR on social media platforms (with 50+M users)