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

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by [deleted] »

scarface74 wrote: post #330
gfodor wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope the internet returns to this model for like a dozen reasons. Insofar as we can be sure this kind of regulation gets there it should be celebrated imo.

The internet should be a common carrier. A private company that sits on top of the internet is not a common carrier. Why should the government be able to regulate what private companies publish? I bet you dollars to doughnuts that neither RedState or Truth social would want to be under the same regulations. I’ve been banned from RedState twice.

[deleted]

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

#392

Post by Test0129 »

mindslight wrote: post #204
bradleyjg wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Rhetoric? I'm making an objective point about the political spectrum. Moldbug labeled his own philosophy as the Reaction, and condemned conservatism as being doomed to perpetual failure because some progressivism inevitably occurs regardless. And it's just plainly nonsensical to label a movement aimed at undermining longstanding institutions as "conservative". As far as synthesis and reconciliation, for a long time I…

>But the flare up of grassroots authoritarianism, specifically in the Republican party where it has gone mainstream

Wow that took a turn to a hot take really fast. You don't find the rise of the green left, the authoritarian self-described socialists like "The Squad", etc to be the equivalent on the left? Or do you only view things through the lens of the party you like? Yes, the green energy, banning ICE, defunding police, anti-liberty left is just as bad as the deep right wing that wants to ban abortion and all the other things they do. There's no question and there is no ambiguity. Both want control of what you do in nearly every aspect of your life. Waking up involves realizing both of the extremes (left and right) would happily put you against the wall.

Extremism begets extremism. Authoritarianism begets authoritarianism. The horseshoe theory of politics has reached its peak in the last 6 years and opinions like this are part of the reason why. It's always "Them". Never "Us". If only "They" could wake up they'd finally love "Our" version of big brother.

How exhausting it must be to constantly find a way to simplify a vast group of people down into the absolute edge cases and judge them entirely on that edge case.

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

#393

Post by themitigating »

nomdep wrote: post #315
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.

Just don’t follow anyone on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram with those views, how is that a ceespool?

Even if you don't follow people you still see user content

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

#394

Post by monetus »

infogulch wrote: post #366
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from How is this different from the current internet?

The platform is tied to the bubble. GP is proposing decoupling them, so the user can choose the platform and choose the bubble separately. > Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer)…

Is the implication that you would have a Netflix/Hulu/Disney dynamic of... Social media subscriptions?

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

#395

Post by plandis »

dionian wrote: post #317
themitigating wrote: post #312

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham, 1st amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... This doesn't apply to people or busineeses making their own rules

so is it ok for a telephone company to cut your line if you support the resistance?

Telephone companies are common carriers (AFAIK) and have additional rules they must follow. Twitter is not.

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

#396

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

infogulch wrote: post #366
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from How is this different from the current internet?

The platform is tied to the bubble. GP is proposing decoupling them, so the user can choose the platform and choose the bubble separately. > Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer)…

The bubble must by necessity have some sort of interface associated with it in order to get the content to the user. There’s a generic platform (HTTP, browser/mobile APIs) and then the “bubble service” implements against those to reach the user. Seems like a completely natural form of tying to me. Are you proposing we force another layer of middlemen to be added in between there?

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

#397

Post by themitigating »

intrasight wrote: post #33
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.

Exactly. The court isn't saying you can't moderate out the cesspool posts. They are saying that you can't choose political sides.

Where did they say you can't choose a side? It's also possible that I moderate content, the majority is conservative, and I'm not choosing a side.

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

#398

Post by giaour »

nequo wrote: post #382

Would this outlaw for example Gmail's spam filter, too? Or only if the spam is wrapped up as a political viewpoint?

Not related to the Texas law, but the RNC has already filed FEC complaints accusing the GMail spam filter of censorship. So I imagine a creative Texas lawyer will probably try to make the case you're describing.

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/29/gops-gmail-feud-escalates

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

#399

Post by stale2002 »

scarface74 wrote: post #386
leereeves wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Internet was created by the US government, so it's also a public resource. Ok, it's been privatized, but can the government abdicate it's responsibility to protect freedom of speech by privatizing? Edit because I'm "posting too fast": Paying for most of the infrastructure didn't make TV stations or phone companies exempt from similar regulation. I don't see why it would make social networks exempt.

The internet may have been “created” by the federal government. But most of the investment and infrastructure is very much done by private companies. If the government of Texas wants a free for all social platform, they can create one.

> If the government of Texas wants a free for all social platform, they can create one.

Actually, it seems like they can create these laws, that have been upheld by the court system as being completely legal.

And then if social media companies break these completely legal laws, then they will be massively fined and ordered by the court to change.

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

#400

Post by barber5 »

Buttons840 wrote: post #163

Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…

Users should protect themselves from this. With the expectation that they will, there will be tons of tools available and this scenario will be a nonstarter.

Decentralized defenses against bots will be far more effective than the central planning of information ecosystems we have today. Just watch.

Post reply on HN