No post body was provided.
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
21–30 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#22As 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…
[flagged]
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#23The 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?
Have you seen the typical social media censorship (bans, deletions, shadowbans... no explanations... secret forbidden words lists...) and appeals process lately? It makes 1984 look like a church camp.
At least the government has checks and balances. And a working appeals process. And is, ostensibly, democratically determined.
Yes, I prefer the government here.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#24As 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…
I've been wondering about a technical solution to this problem for a while now. It seems like a properly distributed social media network would still need moderation... but who is to say everyone has to use the same moderators? What if we distributed the task of content moderation and allowed users to subscribe to a moderation team the same way they subscribe to a friend's updates? In this way, users could tune their own bubble rather than being strictly required to adhere to a centralized set of guidelines.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#25As 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…
> So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted?
Starbucks is on private property.
> Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista?
The Starbucks chalkboard is privately owned.
>Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards.
No it isn't. Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook and see tweets and posts. They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location.
> The internet has plenty of space for people to post their opinions on their own servers.
Up until other big tech companies like CloudFlare decide they don't want to be associated with you and stop offering you ddos protection.
> They are annoyed because if you take away social media, you make it harder for them to get an audience.
Exactly! And that's why Twitter, Facebook, and Google should be treated as public squares. It's not fair that one group can access a public resource that others cannot.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#26Censoring 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. Al…
It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#27As 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…
I'm unclear that this isn't a self referential attempt to redefine the centre rather than a genuinely held view.
> threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law
The laws already prevent the first by the way, it's called true threat
> 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.
Should a coffee shop owner be forced to hear words they don't like? Should the New York Times owner be forced to publish opinions they don't like? Why is Facebook's owner and employees different to a coffee shop owner?
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#28The 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?
They already are. It came out recently that the FBI leaned on Mark Zuckerberg to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#29Important to note that this 5th Circuit ruling conflicts with the 11th Circuit's ruling. And SCOTUS had previously reinstated an injunction against this very same law. And this 5th Circuit opinion has very idiosyncratic reasoning [0, just the first few pages will blow your hair back]. A sample: "In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of cours…
The term “conservative” means nothing if you apply it to a court which has overturned years of legal norm across various areas of law.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#30Censoring 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. Al…
> The only reason that social media platforms do content moderation is to manage the financial (advertisers), and the political risk.
What about the legal risk of hosting illegal content?