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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by anigbrowl »

netheril96 wrote: post #74
mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? Starbucks is a privately owned location and has the right to enforce behavioral standards or kick people out. Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. The internet has plenty of…

You can ban speech based on non-content criteria such as the volume of sound, but when you ban speech based on the content, it is a violation of the principle of free speech. Whether private companies should not be able to discriminate speech based on content is still up to debate, but don’t compare this to shouting.

> when you ban speech based on the content, it is a violation of the principle of free speech

This is the sealion's argument, that you have to be willing to engage with them at all times in all contexts. It implicitly denies freedom of association. For example, if I am running doomermetalchats.com do I have to tolerate K-pop fanatics with their relentless positivity and sunny optimism?

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

#192

Post by AstralStorm »

belltaco wrote: post #160
jlawson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There already are common carriers for communication, see email services.

These are unmoderated, just spam filtered. Forums, social sites and video sharing sites are typically not one of these, and the distinction is important. The most important distinct piece is ownership. Shen you signed the Terms of Service with say YouTube, you granted them rights that vastly exceed ones a common carrier has.

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

#193

Post by SantalBlush »

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…

Facebook, Twitter, etc. are not even close to inescapable. It's remarkably easy to leave those sites for one of the hundreds of other social media sites out there. We're using a nice one right now.

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

#194

Post by Victerius »

gruez wrote: post #83
Victerius wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I say that?

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

By shortening enforcement timelines. In the current system, it would take years for someone to bring a case before a court and even more years before the company would pay any fines.

Courts and the government in general should be more proactive by shortening execution timelines. Shorten the time it takes to go from "Maybe tech companies shouldn't censor people" to "We're arresting Mark Zuckerberg today and he's going to jail next week" from a decade to something resembling weeks.

I'm tired of slowness. I want events to happen quickly.

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

#195

Post by swayvil »

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?

Is it a free forum or isn't it? Is it a transparent window between you and me or isn't it?

To pretend that it is when it actually isn't is a lie.

So trim the conversation all you like, just don't pretend that you aren't doing it.

An "accounting of all trimming" might be appropriate here, right up front.

Or, alternatively, some kind of "untrimmed" certification.

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

solarmist wrote: post #60

Copied from a comment thread below. Because I feel this is the root of the issue/problem. > 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. 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…

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by cddotdotslash »

aliasxneo wrote: post #186
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".

The apparent disdain for Texas in this thread is bizarre.

I mean… it’s the state that implemented this law. So we’re not talking about Montana or something here.

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

#198

Post by csande17 »

belltaco wrote: post #155
BrandonM wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the LUG have 50M MAU?

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

From the article:

> The Texas law forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor" users based on "viewpoint," and allows either users or the Texas attorney general to sue to enforce the law.

From the law (https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F...):

> This chapter applies only to a social media platform that functionally has more than 50 million active users in the United States in a calendar month.

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

#199

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

solarmist wrote: post #60

Copied from a comment thread below. Because I feel this is the root of the issue/problem. > 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. 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…

If people want there to be a public square online, lobby the government to build and maintain it. Call it "US GOV Civic Not-Facebook public square". Let your taxes pay for it and enjoy all the awesome freedom it'll bring. Otherwise, stop trying to dictate how a private company runs their own business. You already pay for literal, physical town squares, why not a digital one?

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

#200

Post by AstralStorm »

houstonn wrote: post #141
xavor wrote: post #19

It's your right to have an opinion, it's my right not to have to listen to it.

It's my right to be able to hear it. As Frederick Douglass, a former slave and writer, wisely stated, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the right of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.”

It isn't your right to have a particular newspaper publish your particular opinion. It is your right to publish your own newspaper.
Post reply on HN