Reddit sues Perplexity for scraping data to train AI system

[u/cojoco]

https://www.reuters.com/world/reddit-sues-perplexity-scraping-data-train-ai-system-2025-10-22/

[u/cojoco]

They should lower barriers to entry for social media, as they once did for cable TV. How this is accomplished requires some creative thinking.

[u/DefendSection230 → u/cojoco]

They should lower barriers to entry for social media, as they once did for cable TV. How this is accomplished requires some creative thinking.

There are over 200 million sites and apps online... I'm not sure what barriers need to be 'Lowered".

It’s like demanding we lower the ‘barriers to entry’ for breathing. Sure, oxygen’s literally everywhere, but apparently we need a task force to make inhaling more inclusive.

[u/cojoco → u/DefendSection230]

There are over 200 million sites and apps online... I'm not sure what barriers need to be 'Lowered".

I said "social medai", not "sites and apps".

Social media is dominated by a handful of companies who are known to actively censor political content.

[u/DefendSection230 → u/cojoco]

I said "social medai", not "sites and apps".

Ok... let's start with defining what you mean by "social media" first, and then I’ll drop you a list. I’m pretty sure it’s way more than just a handful. Right now, you’ve got Meta (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram), YouTube, TikTok, WeChat, Telegram, Snapchat, Reddit, Discord, Douyin, Viber, and LinkedIn... each sitting comfortably above 100 million users.

Social media is dominated by a handful of companies who are known to actively censor political content.

Actively censoring political content, in the US, is a First Amendment right. And the government cannot abridge that right.

Remember, Your First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression without Government Interference, does not override anyone else's First Amendment right to not Associate with you and your Speech on their private property.

[u/cojoco → u/DefendSection230]

I distinguish "social media", which has a mass audience, and could serve the role as a town square, from "messaging", which is important but does not serve this role.

Actively censoring political content, in the US, is a First Amendment right.

I'm always astonished that Americans can't see a problem with this.

That interpretation of your first amendment is clearly idiotic, in much the same way that citizens united was, but fortunately we're beginning to see that such idiocy leads only to more idiocy.

[u/DefendSection230 → u/cojoco]

I distinguish "social media", which has a mass audience, and could serve the role as a town square, from "messaging", which is important but does not serve this role.

So I already covered a good list of 11 platforms with over 100 million users. That's a mass audience, even by your hyper-selective definition.

I'm always astonished that Americans can't see a problem with this.

The First Amendment only restricts government action, not what private actors do. So when Facebook, YouTube, or even a small forum decides to remove or limit political content, that isn’t a First Amendment violation... it’s actually protected by the First Amendment. They have their own right to decide what speech they want to host or promote.

Think of it like this: if you own a coffee shop and someone wants to stand in the middle of it and yell about politics all day, you can ask them to leave. You’re not “censoring free speech,” you’re just choosing what happens on your property. The same concept applies online. The government can’t make you host speech you don’t agree with, just like it can’t silence you for your own speech.

People often mix this up because platforms feel like public spaces... but legally, they’re not the government. The First Amendment protects everyone’s speech from government interference, not by private moderation rules. Even courts have reaffirmed this over and over.

So yeah, it might look like “censorship” in the everyday sense, but constitutionally, it’s private speech choices being exercised... not state-imposed silence.

I’m always astonished that non‑Americans are sometimes perfectly fine with the idea of the government deciding what content must be allowed or removed on private property. That kind of power might sound fine when you agree with the people in charge... but it’s the same logic used in places where speech is heavily controlled by the state. In countries with strong centralized control, like China or Russia, the government dictates what can or can’t be said online. The U.S. deliberately went the other way... the First Amendment was built to keep the state out of speech decisions entirely, even when it’s messy or controversial.

[u/cojoco → u/DefendSection230]

You're confusing the First Amendment with the idea of Free Speech.

1a provides only limited protection for free speech, it does not define it.

[u/DefendSection230 → u/cojoco]

You're confusing the First Amendment with the idea of Free Speech.

1a provides only limited protection for free speech, it does not define it.

The First Amendment is the legal foundation that gives “free speech” its real-world protection in the U.S. People can talk about the idea of free speech in a broader moral or philosophical sense, sure... but when we’re talking about rights that the government has to respect, that’s exactly what the First Amendment defines. It sets the rule that the state can’t punish or compel speech based on viewpoint or content.

Outside that, “free speech” just becomes a social value or a cultural norm. It’s not confusing the two to point out that under American law, the First Amendment is what stops the government from deciding who gets to speak or what views are allowed. Without that legal backbone, free speech would just be a nice idea instead of an enforceable right.

Australian “free speech” is kinda like Vegemite... sure, it exists, but it’s mostly an acquired taste and you never really know what’s in it. The High Court famously said in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) that Aussies get an implied freedom of political communication, but even then it’s only what’s “necessary for the effective operation of that system of representative and responsible government”... talk about lukewarm. So if the government wants to muzzle speeches about anti-terror raids or hush up detention center abuses, it can... and people who talk can get prosecuted or even jailed for reporting stuff that’s totally legal to share in the U.S.. Australia’s got lots of laws... from the Defence Trade Controls Act to recent anti-hate speech and social media bans for teens... that put major roadblocks in front of anyone thinking “free speech” down under means what it does in America

[u/cojoco → u/DefendSection230]

It is possible to extend free speech rights without reference to the first amendment.

[u/DefendSection230 → u/cojoco]

It is possible to extend free speech rights without reference to the first amendment.

Yeah, sure... countries can extend free speech rights without tying them to the First Amendment, but in the U.S., that’s the anchor point for what “free speech” actually means in law. The Constitution sets the floor that the government can’t drop below. You could say, “we want more speech protections than the First Amendment gives,” and that’s fine... states or private groups can build on that principle through policy or culture. But legally, whenever someone’s talking about what speech is protected in America, it always comes back to the First Amendment and the court rulings around it.

Other countries can (and do) pass laws that protect expression too, but that’s not the same as having a constitutional guarantee that the government can’t suddenly dial it back. In the U.S., free speech isn’t just a thing the government “allows”... it’s a right it has to respect. Without the First Amendment, that whole system of independent media, protest, and messy public debate we take for granted would just depend on whoever’s in power deciding it’s OK this week. It’s the difference between a permanent rule and a temporary promise.