No, a judge agreed with Meta’s objections and shut the lawsuit down.
Why would Tate, or anybody else, be owed access to their platform. Imagine if people sued every time a service banned you, a restaurant kicked you out, etc…
Tate’s just another example of what the rightwing mean by “free speech”-- they mean forced platforming for them, and suppression of anyone disagreeing.
In the EU, the DSA gives people pretty extensive rights to challenge such bans (and other moderation decisions), but only if the platform is sufficiently large.
but only if the platform is sufficiently large
hm, that sounds sensible actually
It’s much more complicated than that. Social media platforms have a TOS that binds them just as much as the user. It’s literally just a contract.
The social media company also has much more limited rights to terminate such a contract than the user. At least that’s the case in countries with any consumer protection.
That’s how YouTubers at least in Germany have successfully forced YouTube to reinstate their channel. YouTube failed to prove a violation of their TOS, therefore the contract termination was null and void, therefore the contract is still valid.
There is no contract when you have entered a restaurant. After you ordered your food, there is a contract and you cannot be kicked out for arbitrary reasons anymore. If you are kicked out for no reason, you can sue for damages (but you cannot force the restaurant to enter any new contracts with you, e.g. another meal).
Social media platforms have a TOS that binds them just as much as the user.
They can change their TOS at any time, and frequently do so, so no, they are not bound “just as much as the user.”
It’s literally just a contract.
An unconscionable one, at best, considering the vast power disparity between a large social media site and any user. Clickthrough contracts should be banned outright. There’s no way to negotiate. It’s “my way or the highway.”
Changing the TOS is explicitly allowed. You can refuse to accept the changes but then the company has the right to end their relationship with you (i.e. terminate your account).
There are also strict limits. Something like: “Your account may be terminated for any unspecified reason” is illegal, I’m pretty sure.
And the recent DSA of the EU has further limited social media company’s rights to terminate accounts. I believe they must provide a way to fight terminations and listen to your arguments. Other countries may have similar laws but I cannot speak for them.
Banning clickthrough contracts would genuinely break large parts of the internet though. No more online purchases for one, including anything from Steam to Amazon.
I mean, when a gay couple sued about not getting their wedding cake you guys had the exact opposite response.
I’m of the opinion nobody can force you to provide service like a slave
Who the fuck are “you guys”? You have no clue what I stand for.
And be careful throwing around monoliths, cause the right and pedophiles/white supremecists/grifters/etc. are one in the same if thats the lens were looking at things through
People on Lemmy, not you in particular
Lemmy didn’t exist when that happened lol
No, but that’s not the first time I’ve talked about it here with other people
Sex traffickers are not a protected class.
But whattabout…