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

#241

Post by fzeroracer » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:13 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #156

mindslight wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're posting in a thread about a topic where they're literally trying to do exactly what the GP is saying. I don't know what you view as a 'middle road' given that their starting negotiating point is 'users cannot be banned for any reason ever'.

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

#242

Post by mustache_kimono » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:15 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.

I'm not sure telephone companies or shipping services are a good analogy here, though, yes, that's an example the opinion uses. One key difference is that telephones are generally one to one or one to few communications, whereas social media platforms are a megaphone to speak to many people? Do other forms of mass communication require you deliver any and all speech?

If you're going to say social media is like a telephone, I think you have to at least consider in what ways it actually isn't like a telephone.

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

#243

Post by treerunner » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:15 PM UTC

tingletech wrote: post #106

nonethewiser wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starbucks product is also coffee, not a speech platform.

social media's product is eyeballs on ads, not a speech platform

Yet Facebook and Twitter literally base their business model on sorting out what you get to read. These companies manipulate access to speech when their algorithms decide what you like — and yes, this includes ads.

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

#244

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:15 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.

[deleted]

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

#245

Post by adventured » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #240

coffeeblack wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.

Having run a mail server, I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to contain the deluge of spam and phishing attacks they would get if just told them to "sort it out" themselves.

There's a very simple solution that works very well with social media for that.

You don't receive the OP's messages unless you are friends him them, or change your default settings to allow strangers to message you.

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

#246

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#247

Post by pilgrimfff » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

xavor wrote: post #19

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

Absolutely. But not your right to ensure that nobody can hear.

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

#248

Post by fzeroracer » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:16 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…

I've never been forced into using Twitter, Facebook etc. I've always been forced into choosing one of two ISPs, usually Comcast or Verizon.

Could you explain how these two things are identical?

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

#249

Post by yieldcrv » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

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’m a big fan of simply exiting sovereign markets that are not worth it and would like to see corporations do this more frequently

It is very easy for private sector of almost any size to remind sovereigns about overplaying their hand

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

#250

Post by treerunner » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #136

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…

Controlling what content is rendered on a site is speech itself. Government making rules infringes on my right what my software can and can’t display. It would be like the government telling Wikipedia can’t edit their articles.

Yes! Absolutely.