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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by dang »

Yawnzy wrote: post #31
jfengel wrote: post #6

Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes. No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users. The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint ra…

Are you doing that “rules for radicals” think where you accuse the other side of doing the exact thing you’re guilty of?

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. We ban accounts that post like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#422

Post by themitigating »

sacrosancty wrote: post #380
the_jeremy wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a not-Texan, almost all of what I hear about Texas is oil, conservatism, failed power systems during winter, anti-abortion-rights, and using immigrants as political theater by sending them to DC/NY. I don't know that the disdain is unexpected given the political leaning of people working in technology.

You're probably living in a filter bubble. You'd be hearing only the same kind of things about California if you were in a different bubble.

Whataboutisn.

He didn't claim what he heard was true.

He didn't say he doesn't hear things about other states.

Nor did he make a judgment about Texas.

He only offered a possible explanation to the gp

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

#423

Post by dang »

rullelito wrote: post #8
jfengel wrote: post #6

Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes. No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users. The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint ra…

You should try to get out of your filter bubble more often.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#424

Post by cdash »

themitigating wrote: post #383
dpifke wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need for a government-sponsored forum, when smaller forums are explicitly exempted from the Texas law. The law at issue still allows forums with 49,999,999 or fewer users to discriminate based on political viewpoint. It only says sites larger than that need to allow all political viewpoints (but only if they allow any political viewpoints, and only if they have users in Texas). Legal: Message board with 49 million…

Why the cutoff? Is it because all the companies it would apply to agents conservative, like Truth Social?

Because there needs to be a cutoff in determining when it becomes a "public" square.

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

#426

Post by a_shovel »

kansface wrote: post #365
anon84873628 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some might say that you and your friends' ability to sit on the sidelines is a form of privilege not available to everyone. Along with this idea that in the past, politics was more polite, or less bothersome or whatever. Maybe for some people, participating in politics has been a matter of life and death - something they don't have the luxury to ignore.

This is a terrible argument - a secular Pascal’s mugging, conveniently invoked to force everyone and everything into politics; a currently un-ironic “think of the children”! It is not healthy for our society to demand that 100% of things be politicized - to claim that not politicizing stuff is immoral because some issues are profoundly impactful for some people! I want the good, the equitable, the right, the just and…

Jeez, save some exclamation marks for the rest of us.

If what other people want is bad, inequitable, wrong, or unjust, then wanting the good, the equitable, the right and the just is politics itself.

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

#427

Post by throwawayacc2 »

IntelMiner wrote: post #415
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…

Do you filter "spam" from your email inbox? If so, why? By your...train of thought. "Censorship of any kind" means that rejecting those leagues of boner pills and overseas wives ready to marry you is rejection of their right to speak freely to you

You can’t be serious. Are you serious? Spam is not censored. You have access to it. You click on the spam folder and you can read the spam email in all it’s glory!

And before you even mention auto deletion, you can disable that. I think that should be opt in not opt out but, yeah, spam in not being censored.

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

#428

Post by saurik »

themitigating wrote: post #408
saurik wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't understand your point or what you are responding to :(. The issue at hand is whether the concept of a spam filter violates the position of these laws, and I do not think it does as long as the spam filter is not a universal configuration that is forced on everyone. As long as you can either deactivate the spam filter entirely or whitelist specific senders (though I can make more elaborate arguments where this isn't quite sufficient due to bias) / specific content (which should be sufficient), then I believe that Google's spam filter is not the same thing as "moderation" which deletes or blocks the content for everyone, whether they wanted to see it or not.

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

#429

Post by kelnos »

8note wrote: post #368
bobthepanda wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

230 is broad. At the time, websites were mostly just hosts of content. The individual is posting on the website but otherwise the website is a tool. This changes with recommendation algorithms. Nearly all social media is based on some kind of recommendation algorithm. Should that be covered by 230? It could be argued that it starts to get closer to an endorsement of certain content (and indeed, some of that recommend…

Chronological is still fits the interface of a recommendation algorithm. You can take HN as an example of a recommendation service - while they remove things that are off topic, you'd have to argue that YC endorses whatever is in the #1 spot on HN.

Who is "they", though? Aside from the spam filters, posts largely make it to the front page (or not) due to community moderation. YC isn't the one making those endorsements, the moderating population of HN users as a whole are doing so.

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

#430

Post by a_shovel »

gruez wrote: post #264
a_shovel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing all objections to anything to "disagreement" or "not liking it" is a sure sign of bad faith discussion.

I'm not claiming that the objections are of equal merit, but a moral/legal system is clearly not going to work on a societal level if it's just going to be "it's fine to disregard the legal system if you think there's a good reason for it".

A moral system that doesn't allow one to break the law for any reason, no matter how good the reason is, can hardly be called a moral system at all. Obedience to the state is not a functional moral code.
Post reply on HN