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

Post by giaour » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

peyton wrote: post #403

giaour wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by themitigating » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #181

I do think there's a rationale middle of the road here. Hear me out. I think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, and you don't charge for it, it makes sense to consider what you're offering a public sphere and that just mean it has to be treated like one, where you should be free to speak up and mobilize peacefully. If social platforms charge a fee, or subscription, then it is a priv…

Post by IntelMiner » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:56 PM UTC

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #401

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 stamp…

Post by throwaway0x7E6 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:56 PM UTC

mikkergp wrote: post #158

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.

I wonder if the underlying goal of all this is actually classic authoritarian restriction of freedoms. The big public platforms are much better for spreading progressive ideas than conservative ideas. Maybe this was the underlying reason they wanted to repeal section 230. It wasn’t a misunderstanding it was strategic.

Post by saurik » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 7:58 PM UTC

ViViDboarder wrote: post #350

houstonn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

I’m not sure it is. You certainly don’t have a right to listen to every conversation that every person has. Where would this basis come from?