Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

721–730 of 1001 posts

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

#721

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…

In Reamde, Neal Stephenson posits a future where we pay individuals/services to filter and prioritize the unordered deluge of data from the web. It seems like this ruling pushes us along that path.

You mean like youtube making it premium not to see ads?

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

#722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, moderation feeds would almost certainly be completely protected by free speech laws, as they would essentially be the expressed opinions of individual people.

What free speech laws? Conservatives keep screeching free speech in the realm of a private entity and it simply doesn't apply.

This discussion is specifically scoped to the legal system in the United States.

If you, as a US individual, express the opinion that "I do not like post with unique ID X on platform Y because of reasons a,b,c", that would be protected speech. A moderation feed would be equivalent to a series of such statements.

If other users decide to subscribe to your moderation feed, and have matching posts automatically hidden, that would specifically be the choice of that individual user, and not a private company.

One of the greatest scams governments around the world have managed to pull is making "free speech" a politically partisan issue. There are two sides to it though, but it's not conservative vs. liberal, it's the common people vs. governments and corporations.

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

#723
post #137

Copied from a comment thread below. Because I feel this is the root of the issue/problem. > 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. Yup. This is the exact problem that we’re (as a society/world) wrestling with. The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people…

The decision[0] gives different logic (quoting from page 85): If a firm’s core business is disseminating others’ speech, then that should weaken, not strengthen, the firm’s argument that it has a First Amendment right to censor that speech. In PruneYard, for example, the shopping mall was open to the public—but for the purpose of shopping, not sharing expression. So it was perhaps tenuous for the State to use the pub…

Seems easily solved by twitter recalculating their number of users by subtracting the bots, leaving the total users around 49 million and change.

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

#725

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 can easily prevent that kind of oversized influence by throttling bots, either by volume or frequency of messaging.

This fails even basic scrutiny. They can diversify the feed sources by volume.

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

#726

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 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.

It depends, can I go to the mall and start preaching the gospel?

The answer is yes - at least in NYC, SF, Chicago, etc (where these legal cases have played out). I’m legally aloud to do that; and as it’s the public square I cannot legally be removed (doesn’t mean you wont). It is considered the commons and open to the public. Inside a store is not the same thing, some jurisdictions have various rules.

Now back to this discussion. I agree a company wouldn’t be obligated to amplify, ie promote via an algorithm. That said, they shouldn’t remove someone’s ability to share political speech. On social media platforms they have been banning people for just that.

Social media is the commons, as such anyone should be able to preach to the masses. Though, perhaps it’ll be limited to only those who follow them.

That said, I think the Texas law is kinda stupid. Because the tech companies have claimed they ban for other reasons such as: misinformation — challenging elections, questioning vaccines, questioning masks, etc all get banned.

None of them are directly political in nature. However, only one political party rejects that stuff… that said, arguably I could go to a mall and preach any of those. The same protections should apply.

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

#727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I agree it's not an exact match for many reasons (including because TV didn't let many people broadcast). Phones are a much closer precedent - both phones and social media are tools for person to person communication.

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

#728
post #475

Earlier 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...

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.

A disproportionate share of the intellectual horsepower in the legal profession is on the right. Which is why the conservative legal movement is so effective even though liberal lawyers outnumber conservative ones 10:1.

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

#729
post #217

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…

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…

The term "bot" doesn't necessarily suggest something automated in the context of social media. I could pay a bunch of people overseas to do the same thing manually as well. They are all technically "users".

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

#730
post #698
post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they don’t censor, they’re not liable. If they censor, they are liable.

Sounds like a weird requirement. If they host the content, they should be sued, minus 230 protections

I've read that if you moderate you are acting as an editor even if the content is user generated and that means you are a publisher. Publishers are liable for what they publish.

Section 230 basically erased the distinction between publisher and distributor.

Post reply on HN