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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by scarface74 »

leereeves wrote: post #727
scarface74 wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The cell network also operates by having a license to the spectrum to the public airways and spectrum suitable for cellular service is limited because of physics and therefore is a natural monopoly.

There is no such limitation in someone setting up servers and connecting it to the internet and creating an alternate social media platform. Are there not enough conservatives with the finances and knowledge to create a Twitter alternative? I’ll gladly over charge them and lead the effort if they pay enough. Leading infrastructure and back end development is kind of my thing.

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

#792

Post by garyfirestorm »

Brybry wrote: post #217
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…

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…

If bots earn money, is their income subjected to tax? If yes then they are people.

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

#794

Post by brightball »

hackerlight wrote: post #787
galaxyLogic wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

One nuance these judges don't understand is that picking one person to amplify is often de facto muzzling another because bandwidth is finite in the age of zero friction social media. These dinosaurs are trapped in a 20th century paradigm.

Even in a 20th century paradigm, opportunity cost exists. Something gets more time or budget, something else gets less.

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

#795

Post by ItsMonkk »

coffeeblack wrote: post #262
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.

You misunderstood. Don’t require users to build their bubbles, but have providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from. You could even have external bubble providers that offer different technologies and qualities of filters. Just don’t have one centralised overlord.

uBlock Filters, but for email.

uBlock Filters, but for Twitter.

uBlock Filters, but for ...

Just let us choose which ones we can activate, and if we want to see the unfiltered list we'll turn it off and refresh.

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

#796

Post by pstuart »

To the free speech absolutists here: would you not consider HN a "public square"?

Would you care to engage in some of that speech that you feel is suppressed elsewhere? Would you be surprised if you were admonished and ultimately "censored"?

Would your rights have been violated?

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

#797

Post by sbaiddn »

belltaco wrote: post #291
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want smaller, tighter knit, and moderated communites. Why do we care about outcome anyway? The outcome of section 230 was arbitrary moderation, consolidation, and surveillance capitalism. It is unnatural for an entity to not be liable for what they publish.

>It is unnatural for an entity to not be liable for what they publish Since when have paper boys been held liable for what's in the newspapers? Social media is distributing someone else's opinions. The very forum you're posting in will cease to exist.

The paper boy isnt knowingly distributing, say, child porn magazine. If he were, the. he'd be an accessory. Big Tech does knowingly transport illegal things.

If the paper that the paper boy distributing has the occasional libel, then the paper boy is not liable because he cannot have a criminal state of mind for something he doesn't know is in contained within his cargo.

Finally, the paper boy is a boy, that is a child. Depending on the age he is not criminally liable no matter what he's carrying. Big Tech are not "niños de pecho", suckling bebes. They are large corporate monopolies with immense power, money, political influence and top lawyers

Finally, my solution is to de-centralize everything.

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

#799

Post by galaxyLogic »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #551
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's right there in the T&C and content guidelines isn't it?

That's the thing, it's not. If they specifically said that I'd be banned for having certain opinions different from Zuckerberg, I'd have never complained but they didn't. They are vague, they are disingenuous and I honestly cannot believe so many people are defending them for censoring others. Politics aside, Facebook bans people for smallest of things. I got banned for 30 days for quoting someone's comment. It's a c…

I think the concern here is that the new ruling could make it mandatory for Facebook etc. to distribute hate-speech.

Who wants such an outcome? The haters.

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

#800

Post by hackerlight »

brightball wrote: post #794
hackerlight wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One nuance these judges don't understand is that picking one person to amplify is often de facto muzzling another because bandwidth is finite in the age of zero friction social media. These dinosaurs are trapped in a 20th century paradigm.

Even in a 20th century paradigm, opportunity cost exists. Something gets more time or budget, something else gets less.

Social media has dramatically magnified these preexisting 'material contradictions' to America's sociolegal conception of free speech. The absurdities are becoming larger and larger and cracks are showing. Stochastic terrorist there. Fascist elected here. 500k anti-vaxxer deaths over there. What will come first, will the dam finally break in the form of society collapsing into conspiracy driven dictatorship, or will the ideologues realize that their constructs can't cope with the modern world?
Post reply on HN