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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by magicalist »

variadix wrote: post #255
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…

I agree. I also think the ‘free to use’ model of most big social media websites undermines competition.

I think relying on advertising undermines the news market as well, but I wouldn't argue freedom of the press only applies if you use a paywall.

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

#562

Post by throwaway0asd »

sseagull wrote: post #13
swayvil wrote: post #4

The social media companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter) want legal permission to censor us based on our "viewpoint". Because if they can't do that, they warn, then "dangerous content" will grow out of control. This seems like a big nope to me.

The alternative is having the government decide whether or not a private company can block a particular person for a particular reason. Everyone is generally ok with companies blocking content that is irrelevant/off-topic, but there is a very, very large gray area. Do you want the government deciding what is acceptable?

The way it works absolutely everywhere else in the US is you hire a lawyer and sue the shit of them, but since they are immune from that alternative are worthy of consideration.

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

#564

Post by westurner »

Does this mean that newspaper Information Service Providers are now obligated to must-carry opinion pieces from political viewpoints that oppose those of the editors in the given district?

Does this mean that newspapers in Texas are now obligated to carry liberal opinion pieces? Equal time in Texas at last.

Must-carry provision of a contract for service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

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

#565

Post by soup10 »

westurner wrote: post #564

Does this mean that newspaper Information Service Providers are now obligated to must-carry opinion pieces from political viewpoints that oppose those of the editors in the given district? Does this mean that newspapers in Texas are now obligated to carry liberal opinion pieces? Equal time in Texas at last. Must-carry provision of a contract for service : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

no

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

#567

Post by catiopatio »

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…

They're free to ban bots. That would clearly be a viewpoint-neutral restriction on content/behavior. "Using a bot" isn't a viewpoint, and banning bots is not a viewpoint-based restriction on user expression.

This is a very well-explored area of law, and nobody is confused about the definitions of the terms used here. Even the government has reasonable authority to restrict speech based on time, place, or manner (e.g. by disallowing amplified sound systems).

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

#568

Post by westurner »

soup10 wrote: post #565
westurner wrote: post #564

Does this mean that newspaper Information Service Providers are now obligated to must-carry opinion pieces from political viewpoints that oppose those of the editors in the given district? Does this mean that newspapers in Texas are now obligated to carry liberal opinion pieces? Equal time in Texas at last. Must-carry provision of a contract for service : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

no

How limited is the given district court of appeals case law precedent in regards to must-carry and Equal time rules for non-licensed spectrum Information Service providers? Are they now common carrier liability, too?

Equal time rules and American media history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

Who pays for all of this?

> "Give me my free water!"

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

#569

Post by freen »

nomdep wrote: post #357
freen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I doubt your blog has 50 million visitors, so your argument is ridiculous

What on earth does the number of visitors have to do with the legal requirement for private enterprises to host spam/nazi content?

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

#570

Post by boopmaster »

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…

This wouldn’t be my first choice of examples. Unmoderated swatting forums (as I understand that it was) goes beyond free speech. The first amendment does not protect death threats.
Post reply on HN