U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #429

8note wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The HN mods routinely give posts they feel are interesting a second chance [0], and posts deemed "controversial" via a combination of human and automated factors are deranked.

HN has more active, hands on moderation than most social media sites, and there's a stronger argument that dang "endorses" the front page of HN than that Steve Huffman "endorses" the front page of reddit.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23239449

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

#522

Post by bojangleslover » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:36 PM UTC

patmcc wrote: post #297

Brybry wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think this would apply to bots. The Texas law text[1] says it only protects 'users' which are defined as people. And even then the law only prohibits censorship for specific reasons. It doesn't say companies can't ban users for running bots. Even if the messages the bot is posting are protected the fact of running the bot itself should still be a bannable offense if it's not allowed in th…

So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me?

Oldest trick in the book

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

#523

Post by catiopatio » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

ineptech wrote: post #459

coffeeblack wrote: post #218

Earlier 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.

"Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. Blocking unpopular content doesn't become a political act just because one side produces more of it than the other.

> "Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see.

No, it's users trying to censor what they don't want other people to be permitted to say or see.

Twitter users have a "block" button; they're free to use it, and thus limit what they themselves will see.

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

#524

Post by bglazer » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

cabaalis wrote: post #489

Naming who appointed judges when writing articles about their decisions is a dog whistle. Change my mind.

Its not a dog whistle, its just a whistle. Judges have the politics of the politicians who appoint them; why else would the politicians appoint them?

Frankly, it’s extremely naive to assume that judges are apolitical.

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

#525

Post by daemoens » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

unity1001 wrote: post #306

sseagull wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sure. But there’s a reason this stuff was invented in the US and not elsewhere. I want everyone to think about how increasing the difficulty in moderation will affect all your favorite forums/platforms, including HN. And if you think these laws can be written so they easily apply only to “the big ones”, or that it will stop there, you are being naive. Government will always take a mile if you give them an inc…

> But there’s a reason this stuff was invented in the US and not elsewhere. And that reason is the immense amounts of liquidity that both the US Federal Reserve and the private banks who are allowed to do fractional reserve lending, pump into the US economy. Thanks to the US dollar not losing value when that happens because it is (or was) used as the exclusive reserve currency due to the Gulf countries exclusively se…

Reserve currency status isn't decided by what countries use to purchase oil.

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

#526

Post by didibus » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #514

didibus wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

I've actually updated my response with two more arguments just before you posted. I think it addresses some of your other questions here.

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

#527

Post by wernercd » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #437

DannyBee wrote: post #138

Earlier 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…

"that is not the same as muzzling"

They are actively blocking stories about Biden. Actively filtering stories about negative aspects of COVID vaccines. They are actively filtering stories about inconsistencies in the 2020 election - "The most secure ever".

They are amplifying stuff - absolutely... but they are also censoring free speech because "corporations are allowed too".

"If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech"."

No... but if you post a story and your account gets banned for stuff that's later found out to be true (IE: hunters laptop and the New York Post RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION)? that's absolutely muzzling speech and suppressing facts.

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

#528

Post by shadowgovt » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #475

DannyBee wrote: post #138

Earlier 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.

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...

Yes, it turns out that professional vetting institutions have biases.

If those biases appear partisan, it may be the case and that they are partisan for a reason having to do with the nature of the professional expertise that and the lack of said expertise on the other side of a partisan divide.

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

#529

Post by taf2 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

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…

This does not sound to me like an issue of free speech more of one of you abusing an online service. Use of a bot maybe is against the services tos. So it’s not the content of your message rather the method you abused to spread it?

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

#530

Post by jayd16 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

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

Everything is a statement, intentionally or not. The characterization of what is mundane is itself a political statement.