Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which will speed up issues with extremism greatly.
Which is bad. Are you adding to my assessment or is this a counter that I'm not getting?
Just adding.
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
511–520 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ABA at this point is a partisan institution. Go read into some of their politics and realize that they are very much left-leaning. Edit: example https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...
Maybe instead of telling people to “go read into some of their politics” you can provide some examples and make the argument yourself?
The "do your own research" meme works better when the initiator can make the target go refer to a corpus of questionable content (that is often already ideologically skewed), actively filter out whatever they find benign, and zero in on whatever lights up their confirmation bias.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You have to click a spam folder . You have to make a conscious effort to interact with the free speech being sent to you. Therefore it's not free
We have different definitions of censorship. To me that is not censorship.
Censorship is making information functionality unavailable or altering it. Delete it or deliberately make it very hard to access or change it’s contents.
If you click a button or even add a message ( apart from the content ) that is not censorship. That’s why for example I don’t consider it censorship when youtube added covid messages to certain videos.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument starts with an assertion that I don't think is true "think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, " You don't provide any justification for this
> "think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, " You don't provide any justification for this My justification is two fold. Number one, I think there's a large amount of people who believe that these new media should be covered by free speech. I think you can disagree, but just the fact that a lot of people think so makes it legitimate in my opinion. The question is, is it reasonable f…
"In my opinion, if you subvert public spheres by making spheres of discussion that are more enticing, but still free, but obviously you make money from secondary means from it. This in itself is against free speech."
This is an interesting argument. However, if you are conservative especially, where does such specific extras for freedom of speech come from?
This also isn't something that would just come about because of social media. What if it's extremely cold in the street that you are protesting on but there's a walmart nearby, nice and toasty. All the townspeople who aren't are home are inside it.
It's free to go inside and open to the public. Should walmart not be able to restrict what I say inside
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
This opinion is just badly written and badly reasoned. It's not even well written enough that it is worth trying to debate. Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising.
> a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech .. That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. They don't knock on your door and say you better stop expressing these views or we will harm you. They don't even harass people online. They just simply choose which speech they will pass on and which not. If y…
"choose which speech they will AMPLIFY"
That makes private messages an interesting question, though. Or even cases where many people explicitly subscribe to a single voice -- is the platform really amplifying anything?
Blocking such messages (to specific recipients who specifically opt to receive them) seems materially different than declining to promote/amplify such messages.
I'm speaking from an ethical standpoint; it may or may not matter legally.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Full stop. Even setting aside this opinion, this is false, at least according to the Supreme Court. See the PruneYard case that this court repeatedly cites https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....
That decision does not dispute what you quoted at all. That case is not even about the first amendment, it is based on California’s state constitution. In fact your link makes the exact claim as the one you say is false. > the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech
Touché! But the bit I quoted is something of a non sequitur as this case, like PruneYard, concerns a state law extending additional speech protections into the private sector, so PruneYard does seem relevant, as PruneYard affirmed a state’s ability to do this. Further, it doesn’t seem much rebuttal of this ruling about a state law to argue the First Amendment offers no protection to those censored by Facebook (as the part I quoted was doing). The First Amendment enters the case in terms of whether it protects Facebook from this law, not whether it protects users from censorship corporate censorship.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. If it's a website with over 50 million users, and it's designed explicitly as a place for these users to express themselves, then calling it "a public square" seems entirely warranted.
Why?
If you're not protecting free speech in the places where free speech actually happens, then you are not protecting free speech at all.
If speech has shifted online, to massive social media websites like Twitter, and you don't protect it there, then you have no free speech in your country.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.
Yeah this makes the most sense. There’s probably enough local compute power to run these filters on the client. But that’s a huge power shift and the change is likely more political than technological.
Doubtful. With the rise of natural language spam, you have to analyze it in terms of networks or social graphs of bots reinforcing each other. E.g. a lot of bots will comment positively on other bots spam posts, in a manner very similar to my agreeing with some human. It is data bounded, not compute bounded. Will Twitter be forced to open their full internal conversation graph, including using real IPs probably for accurate targeting, to companies writing spam modules? It seems weirdly implausible.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#519Earlier 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…
> It could be argued that it starts to get closer to an endorsement of certain content But we know that isn't actually the case. The algorithms are designed to drive engagement, what they show you is a function of your behavior on the site, it's not an "endorsement" by the site creators, they're finely tuned machine learning systems optimized for ad dollars - that's it. Once again, this is just another example of how…
If people don’t explicitly look for recommendations and we shove it in their face anyways, is that not an endorsement? “We think you’ll like this.”
There are also active efforts to remove “bad” content from such recommendations, which is effectively un-endorsing it.
Re: U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderated by unpaid users = shit moderation, you get what you pay for. Moderators get rewarded with the rush of 'power'
> Moderators get rewarded with the rush of 'power' Powermods have been detrimental to Reddit's health. There are some great communities with unpaid moderators who care about and foster their subreddits, but most of the prominent moderators don't care about their subreddits beyond the 'power'.
Reddit doesnt seem to care (hey it's free work , right?). There s literally nothing that users can do against bad moderation in grandfathered subreddits. It s really terrible that the same people "moderate" subreddits for 10+ years, while their audience has changed so much.