Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#11

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

josephcsible wrote: post #6

The EFF has really lost their way. They should not be defending Big Tech censoring the Internet.

> ... Big Tech censoring the Internet.

Big Tech is literally publishing the Internet: it can be seen on Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, Twitch, TikTok, etc. (I don't include Google Search and other search providers because they're not generally considered "social media".) The law would allow Texans to sue big tech specifically for not publishing their individual stuff, which could easily be argued as an infringement, by law, of their own speech rights.

If you intend to be arguing that Big Tech has too much of a hand in what gets published, I at least would be one to agree. It should still be the case, however, that they are able to choose what they publish.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#13

Post by version_five »

rudolph9 wrote: post #10

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.

Yes, I think that's the most sensible framework for looking at this. The challenge is that antitrust laws may need to be updated or reinterpreted for platform companies. And there doesn't seem to be too much political will for that. All sides mainly seem to support laws and private action that align with censoring views they disagree with and forcing hosting of views they support. Well only make progress when people (a) agree there will be views they don't like or agree with on the internet and (b) as you say, outside of a monopoly power situation, private companies can choose what they decide to publish or not publish.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#14

Post by capguy255 »

The unintended consequences of this seem off the charts. It's not clear what type of moderation is acceptable under the law. The law was designed to target big sites, but very little stops someone from registering tens of millions of users on a site with a particular slant, posting something that will obviously get moderated, and then suing the site.

I can imagine that both active moderation and meta-moderation by voting would expose a site to litigation.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#15

Post by fragmede »

rudolph9 wrote: post #10

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.

Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#17

Post by olliej »

fragmede wrote: post #15
rudolph9 wrote: post #10

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.

Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.

You can as a restaurant require a certain level of clothing. That can be used for overtly discriminatory purposes, but is allowed.

(Some social media) can say “here are the rules you need to conform to: don’t threaten people, don’t propagate racist abuse, etc” they can’t say “we don’t accept black people”, but if they have rules that apply to everyone, then it’s their own right.

Musk wants trump on Twitter because musk recognizes that buying favour is super easy with trump.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#19

Post by barbacoa »

rudolph9 wrote: post #10

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.

This argument has become so tiresome.

Speech laws become very blurry when it comes to corporations. I'd get in trouble with regulators if I went around saying the herbal supplements I sell cures cancer. Government forces companies to published compelled speech when it comes to food labeling or alcohol/cigarette warnings.

Where does the line exist? I don't know and I'd love to see a court rule on this.

Re: Texas’ Unconstitutional Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed

#20

Post by barbacoa »

rayiner wrote: post #18

Let me see if I understand the left’s conception of free speech here. 1) A corporation producing a political movie about a candidate isn’t free speech. 2) But a corporation censoring content based on political views is free speech.

For those who don't get the reference. #1 is referring to the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling.
Post reply on HN