Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to be clear you're advocating for tech companies to ignore the justice system?
Quoted post unavailable.
That's literally the opposite of what the courts job is. The court rules on laws, not makes them.
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
171–180 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already are. It came out recently that the FBI leaned on Mark Zuckerberg to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Zuckerberg was free not to listen to anything the FBI had to say. No one forced him to do anything.
This is either dishonest or naive. Federal law enforcement "advice" always comes with a hidden message of "Nice company you've got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#173Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#174Quoted post unavailable.
The state has the power to enforce laws and court rulings with violence. Perhaps tech companies should be made aware of that fact.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a weird bias towards "we need a daddy to tell us how to talk". Maybe it's because moderation is too hard for mere crowdsource+algorithms and maybe it isn't. I dunno. And maybe the owners just want to keep that sweet fascist option open.
IMHO, the deeper aversion is because user-driven moderation goes hand in hand with user-driven ranking. Which is turn makes it harder to non-obviously put your hand on the scales and insert paid content into high visibility feeds. If TikTok inserts a well-matched piece of paid content into a feed, who would even recognize? If HN inserts a piece of paid content onto the front page, people tend to notice.
I'm not seeing the hand-in-hand here.
We're looking at 2 different moderation processes.
Daddy
Voting
There is no necessary connection that I can see.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#176Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's not charitable, that's obsequious!
You have never lost your First Amendment rights in the context of a corporate venture. Citizens United goes substantially beyond affirming that fact: it establishes a separate notion of 1A personhood for the corporation itself.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#178If 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.
Sure but it moves the goalposts, away from employees. I think it's better if individual sub-networks selfregulate
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Starbucks is on private property. > Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? The Starbucks chalkboard is privately owned. >Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. No it isn't. Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook…
> They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location. Just reading a book on malls, in America, they are mostly privately owned and are absolutely famous for rigid policing.
The decision in discussion explicitly references a California case where the mall owners were forbidden from kicking out some leafleting teenagers.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#180If 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.
The only research that has been done on this found that on Twitter the conservative voices were amplified more than progressive voices:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/27/twitter-am...