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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by throwawayacc2 »

Good. This is especially welcome news in the context of the unprecedented attack on kiwi farms.

As I said in a different thread, we have laws preventing businesses from discriminating. We do not allow shops to put up “no blacks here” signs. Why do we allow infrastructure providers from doing essentially the same thing?

Censorship, of any kind from anyone, government or corporation is an abomination that must be stamped out. We cannot have a civilised society as long as censorship is accepted.

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

#402

Post by saurik »

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?

I would think that users could be allowed to choose to have a spam filter on their own account--in the same way that I can choose to screen calls on my telephone service--but, if Google unilaterally decides that I am not allowed to receive the call even if I am interested (giving me no way to opt out of their spam filter or allow people I consider not spam), then that could be a problem.

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

#403

Post by peyton »

giaour wrote: post #387
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably, but I don't they that should be allowed. I suppose someone with an applicable disability could also use software/automation to they point where they can post more than someone without that disability.

The line between "user" and "bot" would get very murky very quickly. If you write a tweet and then use a bot to post it at a certain time of day, is your speech still protected, even if it was posted by a bot? What if you have the bot post it at the same time every day? What if you have the bot post it in reply to all tweets with a certain hashtag? Or just all tweets? In each of those cases, the original speech is a…

Fortunately there’s hundreds of years of cases and frameworks to help us get this right. Application of the law won’t turn on minor technical details.

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

#404

Post by themitigating »

navigate8310 wrote: post #363
themitigating wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do you have of reddit employees censoring information they disagree with?

Obligatory: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/5ektpc/rthe...

This says an admin was accused of editing posts, it doesn't provide proof. It then says users down voted him not employees of reddit.

Also subbit reddit admins aren't employees , I believe most people can create a subreddit and be an admin

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

#405

Post by philippejara »

nomdep wrote: post #311
philippejara wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, everything is political whether we like it or not. Even not having a character in a videogame that represents a minority can be a political statement. It's far too broad a brush to paint to be useful for anything

No, like you said, everything CAN be a political statement but, more often than not, everything is not, by default, a political statement

I agree actually, that's fair. Assuming a default position to not be a political statement does complicate things when you try to classify what is political due to giving the status quo a bit to much leeway, but honestly this classification is a waste of time.

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

#406

Post by threeseed »

bqmjjx0kac wrote: post #344
supernovae wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And reddit was a massive experiment in far right takeover. It went from hosting the rally for reason to electing Donald trump at lightning speed. Not because of the overall community, but because of business actions, manufactured turmoil, and well funded trolling.

I'm surprised to see this being downvoted. It was shocking to see how large /r/TheDonald was around the 2016 election. Now, whether they were real, voting US citizens is a valid question.

You still see on subreddits like /r/wayofthebern and /r/conspiracy accounts which are posting full-time (i.e. dozens of posts and comments a day) with pro-Russia, pro-China, anti-US content.

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

#407

Post by stale2002 »

Victerius wrote: post #59
gruez wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to be clear you're advocating for tech companies to ignore the justice system?

Quoted post unavailable.

Then I expect that their assets or be confiscated or people will be arrested.

Facebook might ignore the law, but bank of America won't.

So that money will be taken away from them, by the government.

Or, they could confiscate assets or arrest people in Texas. There are lots of options.

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

#408

Post by themitigating »

saurik wrote: post #402
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?

I would think that users could be allowed to choose to have a spam filter on their own account--in the same way that I can choose to screen calls on my telephone service--but, if Google unilaterally decides that I am not allowed to receive the call even if I am interested (giving me no way to opt out of their spam filter or allow people I consider not spam), then that could be a problem.

You can already block specific email addresses. With the amount of spam this will be a daily problem for you.

Note -, I think spam is filtered before it even hits your account and goes to the spam folder however correct me if I'm wrong

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

#409

Post by kelnos »

> "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling.

I don't really understand this; from my perspective, it sounds like this judge doesn't really understand the first amendment (hopefully this is not the case, and the quote is taken out of context). Corporations are not bound by the restrictions laid out in the first amendment; only the government is. And it seems like this Texas law is an infringement upon the corporation's free speech rights.

> The Texas law forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor" users based on "viewpoint"

What does "viewpoint" mean? I assume it's written that way to be vague and enforceable whenever the state feels like it. Is it a "viewpoint" to spread false information? Is it a "viewpoint" to spam?

I do agree that social media companies need some sort of regulation, as they have (unfortunately) become the only place where some groups of people communicate and get their news and information. But this does not seem like the right call, or the right law.

Also, this is a Texas law; if Facebook closed down all of their offices in Texas, presumably they could just ignore it, as then Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over them?

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

#410

Post by thechao »

mythrwy wrote: post #229
taylodl wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple. Shut off Texas. You don’t have a right to use social media. I wouldn’t even appeal the decision. Let Texas lie in the bed they made.

If Texas were shut off from social media, would net mental health and productivity of Texans increase? I say we do the experiment and find out!

My exurban Texan neighbors wouldn't be able to post their dog whistles on the neighborhood FB page. Oh! Woe is me!
Post reply on HN