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

Post by themitigating » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:22 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.

Post by disruptiveink » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:22 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.

Post by matthewdgreen » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:25 PM UTC

dpifke wrote: post #137

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…

The decision[0] gives different logic (quoting from page 85): If a firm’s core business is disseminating others’ speech, then that should weaken, not strengthen, the firm’s argument that it has a First Amendment right to censor that speech. In PruneYard, for example, the shopping mall was open to the public—but for the purpose of shopping, not sharing expression. So it was perhaps tenuous for the State to use the pub…

Post by nomdep » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:25 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #123

evandale wrote: post #25

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? 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…

You can see the tweets and posts because a private company allows you to make an account, and even then you don't see all. That's like walking into a Starbucks and reading the chalkboard. Everybody who can enter can read it. Factual it's faster and easier to enter a Starbucks than creating an FB account. And like we all know if FB decides to ban your account you can nothing do about it. Doesn't sound like a public pl…

Post by woodruffw » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:26 PM UTC

MichaelCollins wrote: post #316

woodruffw wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

> You have never lost your First Amendment rights in the context of a corporate venture Hmm. Technically yeah, but corporations tend to gag their own employees more than the government gags corporations. The corporation can say just about anything it wants about politics and faces no repercussions from the government, but if an employee says the wrong thing about politics, they'll be shitcanned very quickly.