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

#91

Post by belltaco » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

swayvil wrote: post #72

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…

In one case the corporation is speaking. In the other the corporation is facilitating me speaking to you (like a telephone wire). That strikes me as a pretty clear distinction. My hair is not blown back at all here.

So a Linux User Group cannot kick out someone that's espousing neo-nazi viewpoints during meetings because they're a facilitator of them speaking to you, and because neo-nazism is a political viewpoint?

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

#92

Post by arrabe » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

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.

I'm very glad that there are people in the higher ups that are willing to uphold the constitution. I still have cynicism but its good to know that there is a ceiling.

Don't want to alarm any of you but what I'm hearing through the grapevines is that anti-trust lawsuit against the big T companies are coming and they will be the scapegoat once the nasdaq craters (extreme amount of puts purchased by people who are suspected to have advanced insider information).

ex) Microsoft post dot come bubble.

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

#93

Post by jacobolus » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

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.

The appropriate description for the 5th circuit is “corrupt, incoherent activism”.

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

#94

Post by arrabe » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

Victerius wrote: post #21

Quoted post unavailable.

Tech companies can do whatever they want but it won't help them from becoming the scapegoat when the bubble bursts.

If they followed your advice, they would make the pending anti-trust lawsuit far easier for the prosecutor. ( Yes, a major anti-trust action is under works is what I'm hearing but first they will come for the crypto companies/exchanges who are officially allowing buy/sell of unregistered securities post-Ethereum merge)

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

#95

Post by amatecha » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #35

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.

That’s just saying “until it became a problem, it wasn’t a problem”. Those sites were a free for all, up until it became a problem. And then they were no longer free for alls.

Yeah, this is exactly right. Stronger moderation started happening because more and more toxic/abusive BS became prevalent. I only really experienced true "hostile attacks from a complete stranger" on Twitter in the last year or two, and I've been a heavy user of it since 2007. (tbh my usage has dwindled and I'm wayyy more focused on Mastodon now, which thus far fosters a stronger sense of community than Twitter will ever be able to)

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

#96

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

swayvil wrote: post #23

sseagull wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you may need to re-read 1984.

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

#97

Post by robust-cactus » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

If this passes, basically what's going to happen is a lot of pre-filtering of people entering social networks akin to next doors strategy.

I've worked at a civic tech social network that had no rules, and eventually the extremists pushed out all the normal folks - it's just stupid shouting matches. We tore it all down and made isolated communities. It's basically the only way to have real discourse.

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

#98

Post by xyzzyz » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #41

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.

Sorry, can you explain the turnaround to me? What’s the relationship between Citizens United and this?

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

#99

Post by SamoyedFurFluff » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

andrew_ wrote: post #61

guipsp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every decision is inherently "political"

I often see this sentiment associated with those who wish to regulate political speech they find offensive. It's convenient if everything is political so that everything said can be regulated.

I think quite literally lots of things are political. This discussion is political. Anything to talk about h1b visa is political. Immigration is political. The most offensive speech is arguably political speech, such as advocating for genocide.

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

#100

Post by xyzzyz » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #93

bluejekyll wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The appropriate description for the 5th circuit is “corrupt, incoherent activism”.

This applies to every court in this country, and even more so to some. If 5th circuit is “corrupt, incoherent activism”, I’m lacking words to even describe the 9th.