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

U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#11

Post by tempie_deleteme »

rullelito wrote: post #8
jfengel wrote: post #6

Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes. No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users. The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint ra…

You should try to get out of your filter bubble more often.

that's not so easy... there are some national bubbles which the internet used to be good as igonring, but not once it became the mainstream internet.

now the national barriers exist online too, in addition to the pre-existing language barriers. i.e. the information technology has been deployed as an extra tool to apply national-linguistic barriers between peoples.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#12

Post by mmcconnell1618 »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #3

As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed. At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it. Social me…

So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista?

Starbucks is a privately owned location and has the right to enforce behavioral standards or kick people out. Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards.

The internet has plenty of space for people to post their opinions on their own servers. They are annoyed because if you take away social media, you make it harder for them to get an audience.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#13

Post by sseagull »

swayvil wrote: post #4

The social media companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter) want legal permission to censor us based on our "viewpoint". Because if they can't do that, they warn, then "dangerous content" will grow out of control. This seems like a big nope to me.

The alternative is having the government decide whether or not a private company can block a particular person for a particular reason.

Everyone is generally ok with companies blocking content that is irrelevant/off-topic, but there is a very, very large gray area. Do you want the government deciding what is acceptable?

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#14

Post by evandale »

crooked-v wrote: post #7
Overtonwindow wrote: post #3

As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed. At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it. Social me…

As a free-speech absolutist, the basic problem you should have with this is that as precedent, it would lead right into the legislature being able to force the press to publish certain things because not doing so would be 'censorship'.

How could this set precedent for compelled speech of publishers? Facebook, Twitter, and Google aren't even publishers.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#15

Post by jfengel »

rullelito wrote: post #8
jfengel wrote: post #6

Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes. No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users. The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint ra…

You should try to get out of your filter bubble more often.

No post body was provided.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#16

Post by nonethewiser »

jfengel wrote: post #6

Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes. No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users. The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint ra…

No post body was provided.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#17

Post by freen »

rullelito wrote: post #8
jfengel wrote: post #6

Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes. No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users. The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint ra…

You should try to get out of your filter bubble more often.

No post body was provided.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#18

Post by nonethewiser »

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #12
Overtonwindow wrote: post #3

As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed. At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it. Social me…

So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? Starbucks is a privately owned location and has the right to enforce behavioral standards or kick people out. Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. The internet has plenty of…

Starbucks product is also coffee, not a speech platform.

Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

#20

Post by intrasight »

Censoring and moderating and content, as it relates to this lawsuit, is very expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if it ranks pretty high in their cost chart. The only reason that social media platforms do content moderation is to manage the financial (advertisers), and the political risk. Well, if the politicians and the courts tell them they can't moderate political stuff, then the political risk has been removed. All that remains is the financial risk.

Advertisers aversion to controversy is based on, I assume, their adherence to cultural norms. These norms are fluid. So I actually think these laws will give them the cover they need to stop doing something that they would prefer not to do. I also believe that we'll be litigating this for eons.

Post reply on HN