Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#31

Post by cwmoore »

intended wrote: post #12

I am conflicted. On the one hand getting governments to wade into what is fair speech is absolutely a slippery slope. Yet, platform firms are not correctly incenvitived arbiters of speech either. Square this circle: 1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech. 2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent. 3) As businesses, it…

No need to square the circle when it’s already a hexagon. Commies can’t stand hexagons.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#33

Post by chmod775 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #29
chmod775 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? And thank god for that. I hope this is indicative of a larger trend in the opposite direction. I'm not in the US, but here too free speech and other democratic values have been something the far right could contrast themselves on against the center and left. It pisses me off to no end that the issues I've b…

> ideologically opposed to me Are you sure they are? Probably most people in your country would label you as far right for championing free speech, no other issues considered. Probably you are doing the same for others.

Yeah. On pretty much every other topic important to me, their official positions are either diametrically opposed or lean into another direction far enough that supporting other parties would be a better choice.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#34

Post by chmod775 »

gleenn wrote: post #28
chmod775 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read this five times and I still can't reconcile it with what I said.

Shouldn't you care more about the actual issue than who is writing the laws around it? Why are you so pissed off about the "who" instead of happy you are getting what you want?

I'm not getting what I want on free speech, because the center left form the ruling parties. And I wouldn't want the right to be in power anyways, though soon they couldn't do much worse to this democracy.

People here are getting police visits and legal mail because they called a politician a name on twitter or get investigated over a sign they held at a political protest.

Thousands of cases at this point.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#35

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

nxm wrote: post #27
platevoltage wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give you that Liberals are also antagonistic towards online free speech, but pretending that we have more free speech online right now than ever before is the most insane thing I've ever heard. Just because you can post nazi shit on Twitter now does not mean we have more online freedom.

Please provide evidence that online speech in the USA is restricted in any way, unlike in Europe where you get fined and/or arrested for mean memes

It’s the official position of the US government that posting the number 8647 is a crime. I know this sounds like a crazy thing I made up, but they posted a detailed explainer (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-indicts-fo...): any reasonable person, they argue, would know that this number is a threat to kill the President.

It's also true, I should acknowledge, that the US has a strong system of checks and balances against stupid proclamations like this and a generally oppositional culture around speech restrictions. It's unlikely I'll be arrested for posting 8647, or indeed for pointing you to other illegal numbers like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag, and if I were I'd wear it as a badge of honor. But just because Americans are successfully fighting it doesn't mean there's no issue.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#36

Post by carlosjobim »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #14
panny wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The revolving door of corruption between the FDA and Pharma industry is pretty well documented. But it looks like my speech freedom is going to cost me some more karma. Darned consequences of speech freedom are at it again.

Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. The government can't stop you from saying stupid shit, however it also can't stop other people from telling you you're stupid. Second, horse dewormer doesn't cure COVID. Censoring dangerous misinformation from fools like yourself who will believe it because it's given to them via the right mouthpiece is a good idea, because if…

> Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech.

It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker.

I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#37

Post by plagiarist »

chmod775 wrote: post #11
burningChrome wrote: post #5

Do people not read the article, or do they just read the clickbait title and comment? Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill: EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously, and we look forward to working with Congress on this bipartisan bill as it moves through…

> Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? And thank god for that. I hope this is indicative of a larger trend in the opposite direction. I'm not in the US, but here too free speech and other democratic values have been something the far right could contrast themselves on against the center and left. It pisses me off to no end that the issues I've b…

What? The far right is against free speech. They only ever screech about free speech when someone is experiencing social consequences.

They whine about actual Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private companies' platforms, then turn around and open investigations on people criticizing their masked police force. Attending protests gets you added to the terrorist watchlist.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#38

Post by peyton »

jmull wrote: post #21
intended wrote: post #12

I am conflicted. On the one hand getting governments to wade into what is fair speech is absolutely a slippery slope. Yet, platform firms are not correctly incenvitived arbiters of speech either. Square this circle: 1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech. 2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent. 3) As businesses, it…

This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution. Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protec…

> Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here.

That is not a general principle. Consider the following: it is now illegal to say the word “election” because it would harm the President.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#39

Post by rayiner »

intended wrote: post #12

I am conflicted. On the one hand getting governments to wade into what is fair speech is absolutely a slippery slope. Yet, platform firms are not correctly incenvitived arbiters of speech either. Square this circle: 1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech. 2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent. 3) As businesses, it…

> Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech.

The fiction underlying their section 230 liability shield is that they don’t have to make those decisions. They’re just “dumb pipes” for user generated content. The Supreme Court punted on this issue in Twitter v. Taamneh but it’s going to get resolved eventually.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#40

Post by intended »

jmull wrote: post #21
intended wrote: post #12

I am conflicted. On the one hand getting governments to wade into what is fair speech is absolutely a slippery slope. Yet, platform firms are not correctly incenvitived arbiters of speech either. Square this circle: 1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech. 2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent. 3) As businesses, it…

This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution. Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protec…

> we could reasonably categorize engagement algorithms with certain properties as harmful to people and not subject to first amendment protections

This is a hope, however I have not seen any effort that wasn't scuppered, until recently.

The social media bans are a lurch in that direction.

I could separate them out into different strands:

1) Society saying that the engagement algorithms is not what we want to have in our lives or the lives of our children

2) Problematic technical implementations, or benign technical implementations that invade privacy and support government gaining more powers over speech.

Any regulation shaping algorithms is perilously close to shaping speech. Now if you say algorithms are speech or editorial decisions that platforms have their own freedom to choose, then you essentially strip them of their protections.

This would force a form of moderation that would have most people up in arms on HN.

I fully admit, I am being rough in my cuts; the point I am attempting to make is that any decision to decide what constitutes protected and unprotected speech is going to be government interference.

It may even be likely that the firms such as Meta or Tik Tok would end up as untenable under such rules.

Post reply on HN