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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by evrydayhustling »

infogulch wrote: post #366
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from How is this different from the current internet?

The platform is tied to the bubble. GP is proposing decoupling them, so the user can choose the platform and choose the bubble separately. > Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer)…

Who decides which is the platform and which is the bubble? Seems like Twitter wants to define moderation policies (probably because they think that getting people to value Twitter means placing an some rules on the conversation). Who gets to say that they are a platform forced to carry all bubbles?

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

#662

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

ryeights wrote: post #188
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 1st Amendment applies to aliens. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immig...

Actually, the first amendment applies to the government, not people at all. Most of the bill of rights work that way. They're not things given to people, but things the government is barred from doing. So there's really no legal analysis necessary, the bulk of the bill of rights is pretty easily read and understood by the average person as intended. How can you stand for your rights if you don't know what they are?

Anyway, here's the US 1st amendment:

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I strongly recommend every American to at least read the bill of rights. It'll take you 5 minutes. Tangentially, you may notice while doing so that the TSA violates the 4th amendment millions of times a day.

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

#663

Post by scarface74 »

leereeves wrote: post #355
scarface74 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broadcast TV was using public airwaves. That never applied to cable or satellite TV.

And the Internet was created by the US government, so it's also a public resource. Ok, it's been privatized, but can the government abdicate it's responsibility to protect freedom of speech by privatizing? Edit because I'm "posting too fast": Paying for most of the infrastructure didn't make TV stations or phone companies exempt from similar regulation. I don't see why it would make social networks exempt.

To your edit: broadcast TV wasn’t under FCC jurisdiction because they paid to broadcast. The public over the air spectrum are considered to be owned by the government and licensed to the broadcast networks

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

#664

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

8note wrote: post #634
karmasimida wrote: post #630

Long overdue. Just let people say what the want, by censoring them, you are validating their perspective.

Aight. You now have to repeat every thing i say to your loved ones, as if you were the one saying it.

No post body was provided.

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

#665

Post by kmeisthax »

bobthepanda wrote: post #277
root_axis wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If social media wishes to be immune from lawsuits regarding the content it publishes, section 203, then it should not have the ability to censor such content for an explicit commercial revenue model. Why? This is seems like a total non-sequitur. It's pretty obvious that the individual posting illegal content is the person responsible for it and not the platform it's posted to, unless the platform is soliciting or r…

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…

Fun fact: The US Copyright Office wants to junk DMCA 512 protection for social media using this same logic.

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

#666

Post by xani_ »

throwaway0asd wrote: post #227
mustache_kimono wrote: post #5

Important to note that this 5th Circuit ruling conflicts with the 11th Circuit's ruling. And SCOTUS had previously reinstated an injunction against this very same law. And this 5th Circuit opinion has very idiosyncratic reasoning [0, just the first few pages will blow your hair back]. A sample: "In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of cours…

If social media wishes to be immune from lawsuits regarding the content it publishes, section 203, then it should not have the ability to censor such content for an explicit commercial revenue model. I understand why people hate that opinion, because they want civil discourse and nearly free access to media online. Uncensored content pushes normal people out. Those things are great, but are ultimately out of alignmen…

> If social media wishes to be immune from lawsuits regarding the content it publishes, section 203, then it should not have the ability to censor such content for an explicit commercial revenue model.

It's a bit more insidious than that, as they can still go and say "we don't censor it, see, it is not removed", all while the content is blacklisted from recommendations.

Still works essentially as censorship as nobody can see it until they look at channel directly but it is not technically censoring.

> I understand why people hate that opinion, because they want civil discourse and nearly free access to media online. Uncensored content pushes normal people out.

Nope. It pushes ad revenue out. Youtube, aside from not allowing porn and other 18+ stuff was for long time basically uncensored, you could post anything and algorithms wouldn't punish you.

Got to be biggest video platform regardless of that.

They started with demonetizing or lowering monetization for "controversial" stuff because of ad money, and companies not wanting to see their ads on the more controversial stuff for fear of being associated with it. But it wasn't for people, it was to please other corporations that gave them money.

Recommendation system makes sure that generally if you don't search for something and don't watch it, you won't get it, so the fact some content that might offend them is on the platform is irrelevant.

And after Trump won, the companies just used same systems to push the topics they don't want on the margins of search results

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

#667

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

eduction wrote: post #650
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the other article that made it to the front page of HN on this topic: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th-circuit-rewrites-a-c... It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. This is the quote I agree with: > Frankly, Oldham’s arguments sound much more like the arguments made by ignorant trolls in our comments than anyone with any knowledge or experience with 1st Amendment…

What do you think the most convincing part of that techdirt piece is? To me it mostly reads like an exasperated emotional rant. He calls the ruling “stupid” and “batshit crazy” and likens the judges to “ignorant trolls.” And uses italics everywhere. It’s not exactly an appeal to reason. To me the one interesting bit was this: “ The websites do engage in editorial control. The difference from newspapers is that it’s e…

That article quotes the opinion at length, and I think does a good job of pointing out how bad the opinion is on its face.

For example, just look at the section where the opinion argues that the platform is bringing up "hypotheticals" it talking about curbing pro-Nazi or terrorist posts. I kept re-reading the quoted opinion again and again thinking "Is this judge a complete idiot?" To be clear, I'm not basing this on the commentary from the article's author (though I agree with him). But trying to argue that pro-Nazi and terrorist speech on tech platforms are "hypotheticals" makes me wonder if this judge has ever seen the Internet.

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

#668

Post by armchairhacker »

xani_ wrote: post #653
PradeetPatel wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already being done by reputation management firms. As someone who worked as a resource liaison manager at one, it is not uncommon to see the majority of our social media operators are from diverse cost-of-living locations such as Nepal, rural Pakistan, and parts of Africa.

"diverse cost-of-living locations" is such a corporate way to call it

Is it really diverse if 99% of the population is dirt poor, 0.999% of the population is middle-class, and 0.001% of the population is ultra-rich?

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

#669

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #457
AstralStorm wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't your right to have a particular newspaper publish your particular opinion. It is your right to publish your own newspaper.

This analogy doesn't work. Social Media is not newspaper, they're a printing machine letting you publish your own newspaper. You can't just register with a newspaper and post opinions for free. Social Media websites and platforms are acting as common carriers. They provide you an audience, without upfront cost. If they discriminate against you for an opinion their 'experts' do not like, they should suffer the consequ…

Exactly. People keep ginning up false analogies to justify censorship.

If you create a service deliberately designed so that anyone can sign up and start posting things without so much as an employee approving their registration, then you've deliberately created what amounts to a public square.

To then selectively censor people on such a platform is tantamount to a bait & switch. You promised people a public square, and then revoked that mechanism for people you disagree with.

And if you think big tech doesn't all have the same bias, take a look at this graph: https://i.imgur.com/Si183zE.jpg

Social media like twitter and facebook aren't a newspaper. They're not a podcast. They're not a TV show. They're a digital public square. The sooner we collectively admit that, the better.

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

#670

Post by xani_ »

robust-cactus wrote: post #97

If this passes, basically what's going to happen is a lot of pre-filtering of people entering social networks akin to next doors strategy. I've worked at a civic tech social network that had no rules, and eventually the extremists pushed out all the normal folks - it's just stupid shouting matches. We tore it all down and made isolated communities. It's basically the only way to have real discourse.

Moderation is double edged sword sadly, you need it else the extremists will do exactly that, interpret the ideas of community in the extreme all while pushing out people that they think are not extreme enough.

But on other side... good luck looking for one. The people that volunteer to have a bunch of power over a community and decide who's allowed to stay and who have to go are usually exactly the type you don't want to moderate anything, or have any power whatsoever over anything.

I've seen few times where self moderation mostly worked but it was due to established culture there and any newcomer that misbehaved was just scolded by the more veteran members and that was usually enough. You can see it on smaller subreddits too.

Post reply on HN