861–870 of 1001 posts
If tech doesn't like it, blacklist states. There's going to be chaos one way or another. This is a very long time coming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 y…
"Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.
Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it?
Add to that platforms such as Facebook groups and Reddit subreddits, where the individual groups are much more like stalls and the platform is like the mall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I can already imagine how these totally neutral "providers" like Google and Twitter would implement this, much like Microsoft abuses their OS monopoly to ensure 90% of non-tech-savvy users will eventually be using Edge. Sign up for Twitter. Immediately you're greeted with a list of "suggested filters" that will pop up again and again, using dark patterns eventually, until you either give in or are tricked into adding…
Actually, I suspect that such a law would be on even shakier First Amendment grounds, but here's a test that might bring this regulation into the realms of competition law rather than regulating speech:
Whenever a (sufficiently large) platform makes a UI change about which the FTC receive multiple negative comments, that platform is required to run a poll of (some random subset of) its users, with a wording specified by the FTC, asking the users if they like the change or they find it manipulative.
If most users think that the change is negative, then that's a de facto / prima facie case of the platform abusing its monopoly power to the detriment of its users, since if there were a free market then those users would simply move to a competing platform.
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…
MySite.com will crash if a million people try to read it. BigCorp.com will not. If you can serve more than two dozen people you're not a home, pub or private property, you are by definition a public square.
A concert venue can't evict someone for smuggling in alcohol?
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…
> Users cannot have their speech limited on these platforms "Will this also apply to [completely unrelated issue]? Bet they didn't think of that." What?
“I can draw a vague parallel with this other thing, so clearly it’s basically like the nazis and/or stalin”
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…
> It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. The author, Mike Masnick, is a tech blogger — not an attorney, as far as I've been able to determine. Even Eugene Volokh — who is both an actual attorney and uniquely qualified to weigh in here — didn't attempt to digest the 113 pages of the opinion, much less immediately produce a reasoned analysis. I'm sure one will be forthcoming. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.
For many, many people the internet doesn’t really exist outside of a few FAANG apps. Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it? Add to that platforms such as Facebook groups and Reddit subreddits, where the individual groups are much more like stalls and the platform is like the mall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the irony of all this. It’s the “freedom” party interfering with a company’s right to run its own website.
That company is a de-facto monopoly on political discourse in the world. It should be treated as such.
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…