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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by scarface74 »

starik36 wrote: post #813
scarface74 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet should be a common carrier. A private company that sits on top of the internet is not a common carrier. Why should the government be able to regulate what private companies publish? I bet you dollars to doughnuts that neither RedState or Truth social would want to be under the same regulations. I’ve been banned from RedState twice.

But if the company is the de-facto monopoly in the political discourse, like Twitter is, then it should be treated as a common carrier/utility/etc...

How is Twitter a de facto monopoly? They have a monopoly on what exactly - communication forums on the Internet? Why is it that conservatives are unable to create an alternative?

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

#882

Post by inkblotuniverse »

croes wrote: post #436
nomdep wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a private place has 50 million users it clears that has become a “public place”. Think as if the subway was privately owned

"In 2018, a Nielsen Scarborough survey found that over 37.8 million Americans visited a Starbucks (Statista, 2021) within the last 30 days." So Starbucks is now a public place? I don't think so.

Every starbucks is a different place. If there was a single building 50 million people freely walked into every day, I'd say that should be considered a public place.

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

#883

Post by legacynl »

thrown_22 wrote: post #692
themitigating wrote: post #312

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham, 1st amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... This doesn't apply to people or busineeses making their own rules

>This doesn't apply to people or busineeses making their own rules It didn't apply to states either. Yet it now does. When something gets large and powerful enough it becomes a government regardless of how you try and spin it.

> When something gets large and powerful enough it becomes a government regardless of how you try and spin it.

Is this a quote or something? Because that doesn't make sense at all.

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

#884

Post by inkblotuniverse »

ryandrake wrote: post #108
evandale wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your website isn't a public square because you're the one publishing content to it. We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host.

They are not public platforms, though. Not anymore public than a Starbucks. Just because "the public" can walk through a store's unlocked doors doesn't make the place public property. Same with social media. Just because "the public" can log into the platform's system doesn't make the place public. Social media does, in my view, publish the content they host. It's not like the telephone, where you establish a direct…

If twitter is a publisher, I should be able to sue them for what they publish, but I can't because of CDA 230. Are you in favor of repealing that law?

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

#885

Post by LudwigNagasena »

DannyBee wrote: post #143
swayvil wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one case the corporation is speaking. In the other the corporation is facilitating me speaking to you (like a telephone wire). That strikes me as a pretty clear distinction. My hair is not blown back at all here.

The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Full stop. Between people and people, corporations and corporations, and corporations and people it does nothing. The opinion fails at this very basic fact because they want it to be false. Not because there's any law suggesting it is false, nor has there been in a hundred years, but because they dont like it they just decided to make it up…

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

> Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

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

#886

Post by throwaway0asd »

amaranth wrote: post #826
puffoflogic wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fairly simple argument for this position is: This speech (the content posted to social media) is either speech by the poster or speech by the social media company; you can't have it both ways. If the social media company isn't responsible for illegal content, then ipso facto it must be the user's speech. But then the company doesn't have first amendment rights attached to that speech itself, such as the right again…

In a world where Facebook doesn't have a freedom of speech right to remove a post without also losing section 230 protection do you think freedom of association could cover removing specific posts or only banning users outright? Would Twitter's model of banning a user until they delete their own unwanted tweet(s) be okay?

That’s not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only protects what you say only from government censorship.

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

#887

Post by legacynl »

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…

Social media isn't a common carrier.

The internet is the common carrier.

The analogy of the printing press doesn't work, because the printing press symbolizes a big clunky piece of machinery that a regular user can't build, maintain, run or afford. With the internet it's not like that is it? There are literally thousands of options for a regular user to create their own 'newspaper' without having to pay large sums up front or anything at all.

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

#888

Post by legacynl »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #669
NayamAmarshe wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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.

So if I host an open-mic night in my comedy-club, i lose the right to reject applicants?

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

#889

Post by legacynl »

hunterb123 wrote: post #626
mikeyouse wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to hear his opinion, he can email you… I can’t believe so many people are in favor of compelled speech here.

I can't believe so many people (or bots) here are defending the social media oligopoly. This isn't forcing a mom and pop store to bake a cake, it's giant corporations that are picking and choosing which users and ideologies in the world can be heard. We don't let ISPs or mobile carriers do this, why let giant social media platforms do it? These platforms have government officials and even entire administrations solel…

> This isn't forcing a mom and pop store to bake a cake, it's giant corporations

what does it matter how big the company is? Rules should be the same for everybody regardless of how big they are.

> that are picking and choosing which users and ideologies in the world can be heard.

I don't agree with this at all. You act as if twitter is the only platform that allows people to post their opinions. It's not, it never was, and it never will be. If an oppinion is not on twitter doesn't mean that it 'can't be heard in the world'.

The cynist in me suspects that it's just people who are buthurt that bad orange man was banned, and these people rather bitch, moan and throw tantrums until people adjust to them, rather than get of their lazy ass and create their own platform.

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

#890

Post by throwaway0asd »

8note wrote: post #320
throwaway0asd wrote: post #227

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. 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…

Alternatively, if you want a free speech platform as a public square, you should convince your government to build and operate it, rather than delegating to private entities who aren't bound by the constitution

What is a free speech algorithm? I just want online speech open to the same freedoms and limitations as all other speech.

Edit: Why is that objectionable?

Downvote trolls responding to a comment in less than a minute on a thread buried in other comments nearly 24 hours old. Feels like a bot.

Post reply on HN