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

#111

Post by woodruffw » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #98

bradleyjg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Citizens United determined that corporations have some of the same natural rights that people do. In particular, First Amendment right, which in turn means that corporations can do the same politicking (and political funding) that natural persons do.

This ruling countermands that: the (implicit) right to not be compelled to speak would seemingly no longer apply to corporations or, more accurately, the people within them.

Edit: It's important to note that corporations' rights to moderate their online holdings does not rely on the CU ruling.

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

#112

Post by mindslight » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

mustache_kimono wrote: post #51

bradleyjg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that history is happening as we speak (Yo, media outlets/reporters interested in writing a feature! This would be an amazing topic.). The crux is really 2016/Trump, Adrian Vermeule's "common good constitutionalism", and outlets like Claremont's The American Mind. For lack of a better term, MAGA conservatives are building an intellectual infrastructure for a very aggressive conservative judiciary right now.

Can we stop miscategorizing reactionary regressivism as "conservatism" ? There is nothing conservative about it. They're essentially trying to drag us back at least a few decades and destroy longstanding institutions, including things like separation of church and state and the right to access medical care.

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

#113

Post by robust-cactus » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #104

robust-cactus wrote: post #97

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.

It already passed, it's a law on the books in Texas. And now it's been upheld at by both trial and circuit courts. FWIW: there's one last chance at SCOTUS to undo this, but if that doesn't work out what we're almost certain to see instead of "pre-filtering" is just "No Tweeting from Texas".

It's kinda interesting how a world like "no tweeting from Texas" might jive with EU laws which want to restrict IO and data storage to just inside the region or country.

Are we about to get more decentralized just because the laws are accidentally forcing us to?

Imagine connecting to EU or Texas Twitter to see what's going on there.

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

#114

Post by encryptluks2 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #104

robust-cactus wrote: post #97

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.

It already passed, it's a law on the books in Texas. And now it's been upheld at by both trial and circuit courts. FWIW: there's one last chance at SCOTUS to undo this, but if that doesn't work out what we're almost certain to see instead of "pre-filtering" is just "No Tweeting from Texas".

Maybe they can finally secede and take Elon with them.

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

#115

Post by unity1001 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:01 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #76

solarmist wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. This is the exact problem that we’re (as a society/world) wrestling with. The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people (without the internet), but it can on a website. That by itself distorts the public/private argument, but we as a society aren’t sure how or to what extent yet. These lawsuits are the second step (the first step wa…

So, because any website can potentially reach millions of people, all websites must be considered public spaces and must be coerced to allow all legal speech? I honestly don't think it distorts the public/private argument, any more than MacDonald's serving billions of customers distorts the question of whether it's a private corporation or whether its scale transforms it into a public service. But the inevitable endg…

> So, because any website can potentially reach millions of people, all websites must be considered public spaces and must be coerced to allow all legal speech?

Yes. When a few corporations dominate anything, they cannot be considered 'private' entities that can do whatever they want anymore. They are infrastructure, and they have to oblige by the democratic rules and regulations like how any large infrastructure company does.

Free speech is no different. After consolidating a majority of the social space and literally gaining the power to set the public discourse, no company can be let to do whatever they want with that power. That would invalidate any concept of free press. Not that current 'free' press is any different and that it does not need a major regulatory crackdown. But it has to start somewhere, and starting from the companies who literally ousted the traditional press from the helm of public discourse should be a good place to start.

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

#116

Post by taylodl » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:01 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #104

robust-cactus wrote: post #97

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.

It already passed, it's a law on the books in Texas. And now it's been upheld at by both trial and circuit courts. FWIW: there's one last chance at SCOTUS to undo this, but if that doesn't work out what we're almost certain to see instead of "pre-filtering" is just "No Tweeting from Texas".

Simple. Shut off Texas. You don’t have a right to use social media. I wouldn’t even appeal the decision. Let Texas lie in the bed they made.

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

#117

Post by mikkergp » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:01 PM UTC

Hacker News avoids political discussion, would this mean a site like hacker news(assuming it’s big enough) couldn’t moderate heated political discussion as off topic?

Im curious how this would apply to Reddit, will there just be constant brigading of the political forums?

Ironically as others have pointed out this will probably have a severe chilling effect on speech.

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

#118

Post by efitz » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:02 PM UTC

mikkergp wrote: post #117

Hacker News avoids political discussion, would this mean a site like hacker news(assuming it’s big enough) couldn’t moderate heated political discussion as off topic? Im curious how this would apply to Reddit, will there just be constant brigading of the political forums? Ironically as others have pointed out this will probably have a severe chilling effect on speech.

There’s political discussion all over hacker news, in the comments.

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

#119

Post by pclmulqdq » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:02 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #91

swayvil wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

By some readings of section 230, they may not be able to unless they want to be treated as a publisher of speech. However, almost nobody is going to actually argue that this is the case.

Also, IIRC moderation rules are allowed, and if your rule is "no politics on the forum" and someone talks politics, they can be banned. Same with "no racism" or "no antisemitic comments."

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

#120

Post by unity1001 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

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

Yes, if they or their majority shareholders dominate a noticeable part of the press. Otherwise you end up how things are - a minority of the rich consolidating the press, setting the public agenda as they want to.