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

#581

Post by LatteLazy » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:41 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…

The constitution mostly applies to the US government ("Congress shall make no law" etc).

Also, people speak anonymously in public spaces all the time. I don't have to provide ID to stand on a street corner and shout about politics or Jesus etc...

I like the idea of separating public from private spaces based on charging.

Of course, none of this solves (at least one of the) core issue: if you have moderation, someone has to decide what is moderated, if you don't bad faith actors will lie, troll etc. Either way, real discourse is very difficult to achieve.

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

#582

Post by leereeves » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:41 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #414

dionian wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so is it ok for a telephone company to cut your line if you support the resistance?

Is it ok for them to cut my line if I don't pay the bill? They are common carriers, like ISPs , social media companies are not

Are ISPs considered common carriers right now? I know that's changed a few times and I haven't kept up with the latest.

Will social media companies be considered common carriers? That's still possible too.

Ultimately, a "common carrier" is whatever the government says it is.

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

#583

Post by zrail » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:42 PM UTC

concinds wrote: post #541

CJefferson wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having run a mail server, I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to contain the deluge of spam and phishing attacks they would get if just told them to "sort it out" themselves.

A better comparison would be if Gmail placed emails you really want to receive in the spam for you. Actually, they wouldn't even put it in the spam folder; they'd just delete it permanently before you can read it, "for your safety". With email, if you don't want to receive someone's emails anymore, you unsubscribe. Or put it in spam (equivalent to social media block) and you won't see those emails anymore. "Platforms…

> A better comparison would be if Gmail placed emails you really want to receive in the spam for you. Actually, they wouldn't even put it in the spam folder; they'd just delete it permanently before you can read it

Gmail regularly does both of these things to me despite explicit filter rules to the contrary.

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

#584

Post by bboygravity » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:44 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…

You're literally describing Twitter here.

Source: search for "Peñabots". There are great detailed documentaries about how far this went. That's one example, but this is ongoing for every major (geo)political topic and big businesses / hedge funds and the media "news" companies they own.

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

#585

Post by rvz » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

encryptluks2 wrote: post #135

efitz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s political discussion all over hacker news, in the comments.

It is often one sided. As soon as you say something that doesn't fall into line, like against the monarchy, then you get censored.

> As soon as you say something that doesn't fall into line, like against the monarchy, then you get censored.

Or anything crypto-related. The HN 'anti-crypto squad' will flag, downvote and censor anyone that talks about it or attempts to defend it.

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

#586

Post by catiopatio » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

ineptech wrote: post #572

catiopatio wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced.

What would you call it?

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

#587

Post by trimethylpurine » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

mikkergp wrote: post #328

trimethylpurine wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opinion of three journalists working for the same retail tech conglomerate is hardly "research." WaPo has suffered a Pulitzer Prize revocation in 1981 for fabricating stories, has continuously circulated advertisements from China Watch (operated by the CCP), repeatedly settled on libelous claims made for profit, and on numerous occasions assisted in providing platforms for anti-Western and anti-Semitic groups sup…

Really you had to go back to 1981?

Yeah, I guess I couldn't find any examples of journalism for profit since 1981. Or maybe, I chose an old example to make a point about how it's always been for profit.

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

#588

Post by anotherevan » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

Them: “You must censor hate speech on the internet!”

Also them: “I didn’t mean you should censor my hate speech!”

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

#589

Post by throwawayacc2 » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

boopmaster wrote: post #570

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.

You understand wrong what kiwi farms is. The moderation there is far better to facebook for example. Not in small reason due to the fact they don’t censor. They comply with the law. Unlawful content is pulled down immediately, lawful content stays up. Cloudflare lied to you when they said “human life is in immediate danger”.

In matters like this, it’s best to actually look at how both sides present the issue.

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

#590

Post by malshe » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #539

enraged_camel wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe instead of telling people to “go read into some of their politics” you can provide some examples and make the argument yourself?

Added a context link. Here it is for you https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...

That’s an opinion piece like a blogpost