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

#151

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

intrasight wrote: post #87

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.

Reddit is still a free for all - including porn

It's not even close, admins ban subs all the time, mods are under strict grip of admins on how they need to mod thing otherwise they get replaced, there are cases where admins straight up say that mod teams need to get more people in the team or they'll lose the sub, i've seen subs with automods straight up saying that they need to be careful with what is written otherwise they'll be banned.

The huge Aimee Challenor thing, that lead to people being banned anywhere the name was uttered is just the super high profile example I know, i'm sure reddit users would be able to show more smaller cases.

Just want to make it clear, I'm not claiming this control is good or bad, there are good reasons for and against moderation, but reddit is not even close to a free for all.

[0]: https://www.newsweek.com/reddit-aimee-knight-challenor-fired...

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

#152

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

vsareto wrote: post #58

andrewclunn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fl…

You can equally make the argument that whining about a post removed is also being fragile, just go to a different website, turn off the computer, start your own blog, etc. The difference now is that corporations have to allow this, and that if you don't want to deal with that content, you essentially have to not start a company because you can't moderate it, so it closes the door to the freedom of running opinionated…

You're still free to block the people you don't like.

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

#153

Post by tootie » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #148

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.

Yet Reddit, that follows this model, still manages to engage in suppression of on-topic viewpoints that moderators and/or Reddit employees disagree with.

Probably because mods are unpaid and not employees.

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

#154

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #111

xyzzyz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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.

A more charitable way to put this: you don't lose your First Amendment rights just because you joined with other people for commercial or other purposes.

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

#155

Post by belltaco » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

BrandonM wrote: post #103

belltaco wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Does the LUG have 50M MAU?

Where in the law does it say different rules for 50M MAU vs 50?

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

#156

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #112

mustache_kimono wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. Because as much as your absolute moral certitude might feel good to express you aren’t changing anyone’s mind with it. On the contrary.

There’s tens if not hundreds of millions of them and same for you guys. We are all stuck together in one polity.

If we are ever going to achieve a synthesis and get back to a healthier place it’s not going to involve the kind of rhetoric you are indulging in here.

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

#157

Post by a_shovel » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

There's discussion over what exactly a "political view" is here. I find this quote from a previous article [1] enlightening:

> "No one—not lawyers, not judges, not experts in the field, not even the law's own sponsors—knows what compliance with this law looks like."

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/texas-law-bannin...

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

#158

Post by mikkergp » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

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.

I wonder if the underlying goal of all this is actually classic authoritarian restriction of freedoms. The big public platforms are much better for spreading progressive ideas than conservative ideas. Maybe this was the underlying reason they wanted to repeal section 230. It wasn’t a misunderstanding it was strategic.

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

#159

Post by efitz » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

taylodl wrote: post #116

ajross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#160

Post by belltaco » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #124

BrandonM wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the LUG have 50M MAU?

This is really the critical factor. Anti-speech pro-corporate-authority advocates always try to put these monopolistic, unescapable megacorporations in the same category as some local mom-and-pop operation. It's a massive intentional category error; megacorps are not little companies you can just walk awawy from. There is a point where a corporation's influence becomes so unescapable and so capable of greatly degradi…

>The same reason that the phone company or a company that owns all the local roads or water mains can't decide to "stop serving" you because they don't like your religion

Because it's hard to impossible to get alternate services for roads, water and electricity, i.e common carriers. But there are plenty of neo nazi forums, Gab, Truth Social, Parler, 4chan for racists to express and spread their views.