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

81–90 of 1001 posts

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

#81

Post by evandale »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #27
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'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 ph…

> Should a coffee shop owner be forced to hear words they don't like?

How does forcing Twitter to allow Donald Trump to post translate to forcing you to hear words you don't like? You're free to block him and not read anything he posts.

> Should the New York Times owner be forced to publish opinions they don't like?

No, NYT is a publisher and has always had full control over what they publish.

> Why is Facebook's owner and employees different to a coffee shop owner?

Because Facebook's owner decided to offer a platform that anyone can sign up to for free which allows them to share their content with friends and the world. Starbucks sells coffee.

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

#82

Post by sofixa »

bluejekyll wrote: post #29
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…

The term “conservative” means nothing if you apply it to a court which has overturned years of legal norm across various areas of law.

Yes, the correct term is reactionary, which many modern "conservatives" are - they don't want things to remain the same, they want a return to "the good old days".

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

#83

Post by gruez »

Victerius wrote: post #73
gruez wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"proactive"... how? By making rulings that you agree with? Is it fair to say that your opinion on this matter boils down to "companies should ignore the courts if it's a ruling I don't like"?

Where did I say that?

If that's not your opinion please explain what you mean by courts being more "proactive"

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

#84

Post by sofixa »

andrew_ wrote: post #53
freen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Quoted post unavailable.

No, because the topic at hand literally includes Nazis. The speech being censored, which is being discussed, includes Nazis and the like being free to spout their shit on Twitter/Facebook or not.

(And they should not, I don't know how that's even a debate)

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

#85

Post by jimmydorry »

evandale wrote: post #80
Aachen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how the heck my website is a public square but my home or café isn't, this argument sounds self-contradictory

Your website isn't a public square because you're the one publishing content to it. We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host.

>We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host.

Don't you consider it publishing when they express editorial control over what topics are allowed on their platform, without transparency or accountability of what the forbidden topics are at any given point of time? They also modify the user generated content and add labels and "fact checks" which are prominently displayed.

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

#86

Post by intrasight »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #68
guipsp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every decision is inherently "political"

Exactly, grey zones can happen really quickly. For example if someone says "I think Candidate X from Party Y is a total a-hole." Is that a political statement or a cesspool comment? I see legitimate arguments for either.

And this is why the us supreme court will throw out this appellate ruling. They really don't like grey zones.

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

#87

Post by intrasight »

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.

Reddit is still a free for all - including porn

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

#88

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

netheril96 wrote: post #70
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.

Why not give users the power of moderation? Currently the website owner makes the decision for me about what content I should not be seeing. I want instead all or at least almost all content preserved and the ability to create and subscribe to blocklists. The website can have a default blocklist active to make it palatable for the majority.

This is an interesting model, and there's nothing stopping someone from starting a social media site that works like this. But that doesn't mean that existing ones should be forced to use this model. Let's try them both (and others) and see which ones work best for their users.

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

#89

Post by intrasight »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #45
fallingknife wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Porn is and has always been very political

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

#90

Post by belltaco »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #44

Repeal section 230 All of this sounds like an aberration created by giving these companies immunity.

It will result in way higher moderation, instead of less.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actua...

Post reply on HN