U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:27 PM UTC

mustache_kimono wrote: post #5

Important 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…

It’s a pretty abrupt turnaround from the same legal movement that brought us Citizens United.

I’d be interested in a fair (i.e. not overly critical or fawning) book length history of the Federalist Society and how it’s evolved.

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

#42

Post by zosima » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:28 PM UTC

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…

The court and statute in question specifically mention that censorship can happen for a variety of legal reason.

This ruling only denies the right to censor based on viewpoint, something which I believe Starbucks is also bound by. You can throw a customer out for being obnoxious and threatening. But probably not for sitting at a table and calmly discussing the pros and cons of various abortion laws, sharing opinions Starbucks disagree with.

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

#43

Post by colejohnson66 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:28 PM UTC

zeta0134 wrote: post #24

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…

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…

That’s Mastodon

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

#44

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

Repeal section 230

All of this sounds like an aberration created by giving these companies immunity.

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

#45

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #32

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People say this, but not long ago Twitter/Reddit/Youtube were basically a free for all for anything except porn. And their user numbers were skyrocketing at the time.

> anything except porn

That's moderation. Both because they are actively excluding certain content, but also because 'porn' can be subjective and so decisions have to be made about what does and does not qualify.

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

#46

Post by andrewclunn » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

xavor wrote: post #19

It's your right to have an opinion, it's my right not to have to listen to it.

That's easy enough, don't read it, turn off your computer, follow the people saying things you want to hear from, etc... Oh you mean you don't want ANYONE to potentially hear those things, so that you might not accidentally come across a position you don't like? Yeah, that's called being fragile, and the sort of people you will empower if you push for that as policy are those who are more than happy to control the flow of information to their own ends / enrichment.

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

#47

Post by andrew_ » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

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…

poor examples. a disruptive patron on private physical property can be removed on numerous other grounds such as trespassing, just as damaging private property has its own legal stipulations.

as it is now, virtual private property doesn't have parity with laws governing physical private property.

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

#48

Post by LinuxBender » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:32 PM UTC

zeta0134 wrote: post #24

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…

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…

I believe you are describing federated networks such as mastodon [1] and matrix [2] Individual servers/clusters can be moderated by their operators. I've not run either of those, but I have run IRC servers that can work in a similar model.

[1] - https://joinmastodon.org/

[2] - https://matrix.org/faq/

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

#49

Post by nicce » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:32 PM UTC

Victerius wrote: post #21

Quoted post unavailable.

The problem is that there is no common ground what should be censored and not. The power of selecting the subjects for censoring gives more power to companies which they should not have.

Or someone can pay for them to censor some specific topics.. Or they can censor some specific topics to appeal some political decisions which touches only one party.

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

#50

Post by mcphage » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 1:32 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #10

On the one hand this clearly violates the 1st amendment. On the other hand, the 1st amendment is already out the window when the FBI is leaning on social media platforms to censor news stories that turn out to be true.

> when the FBI is leaning on social media platforms to censor news stories that turn out to be true

I’m impressed with Mark Zuckerberg… everyone was mad at him for blocking that story, yet with a single vague implication that people stretched into something very different, he managed to deflect all of the anger onto the FBI. Very smooth.