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

61–70 of 165 posts

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

#61

Post by atmavatar »

rayiner wrote: post #43
plagiarist wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The proper response to that is to support free speech values in both circumstances. Otherwise, we’re just going to be fighting about the details of whether particular conduct falls within the letter of the free speech protections.

There's a very important distinction to be made.

Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private platforms happens because a large number of people organize in protest against such rhetoric. Advertisers see this and don't want to be associated with it, so the ad-driven platforms make the obvious choice to remove the Nazis. This is an example of people exercising their free speech and their often overlooked freedom of/from association.

Nothing stops the Nazis from creating their own platform or buying out an existing one, which is why we have Gab, Truth Social, and X. They're also free to organize themselves and try convincing people to leave the platforms which banned them and/or convince advertisers to apply pressure to let them stay.

You have to appreciate the absurdity of getting airtime on nearly every right wing media platform to complain about being silenced, though.

Arguing private platforms should be forced to keep Nazi rhetoric around isn't meaningfully different from arguing I shouldn't be able to kick a guest out of my house when they start spouting intolerable bullshit.

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

#62

Post by shevy-java »

On the bright side: it means the current dictator clowns in charge, are afraid of people having their own opinion.

On the not so bright side: this is literally KGB textbook 101. Yuri explained this in the 1980s already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk

Ultimtately, though, while the billionaires running the show are ruthless, their puppets in the current administration are really so incompetent that they will literally ruin everything, including their own corrupt ambitions.

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

#63

Post by [deleted] »

jMyles wrote: post #9
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a real thing that people actually made to accomplish something and a fake thing you made up in your head to be angry about.

Although I agree that ICE block and its various sibling apps and spinoffs are important and do accomplish something meaningful, it's certainly not a "fake thing" that many of the world's foremost experts on the relevant topics were censored with regard to epidemic response. Facebook's treatment of the BMJ investigation of the unblinding of the Pfizer trial (which of course, turned out to be spot-on) was absolutely sh…

[deleted]

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

#64

Post by shevy-java »

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 why should that matter? Your assumption here is that these two parties are different to one another AND not corrupt. I don't see why these two assumptions should be true intrinsically. Can you explain why, if a Democrat does xyz, one should not be wary anymore?

As for "bi-partisan effort": look at public hearings recently. On simple questions such as was the storm of the capitol an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government, all the clown members of the current clown administration dodged to answer that. Any more questions necessary here?

> Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill

And why would that matter either? The EFF is not a holy shield that has taken away people's ability to think for themselves. I don't need any moral compass given by EFF or anyone else to know where and when and how corruption works.

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

#65

Post by shevy-java »

lifty wrote: post #58
root_axis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every faction claims they support free speech and every faction also supports suppression of certain types of speech.

But do you agree this bill is positive?

But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.

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

#66

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

rayiner wrote: post #39
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.

This is a common but backwards misconception. Section 230 was written to ensure that online platforms could make decisions on speech and did not have to just be dumb pipes. Congress was worried that a "dumb pipe only" regulatory regime was taking shape through court decisions, which would have forced platforms to choose between letting users post obscene rants and accepting liability for anything defamatory users might say.

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

#67

Post by petilon »

I think "government pressure" needs to be defined. If vaccination misinformation is spreading like wildfire on social media, and measles and other deadly diseases are getting out of control, and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal?

Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit information, and that's certainly a valid argument.

But that idealistic approach quickly runs into a wall. As Bill Gates said on Oprah's show, "We were a bit naive: we thought the internet, with the availability of information, would make us all a lot more factual. The fact that people would seek out—kind of a niche of misinformation—we were a bit naive."

So yes, people seek out misinformation, because of some inherent belief that there is a vast conspiracy going on that they aren't aware of, and the more conspiratorial some news sounds, the more likely they are to believe it. So you can't necessarily fight misinformation with legit information, unfortunately. As a result, a public health crisis is likely if social media companies do nothing to control the spread of misinformation.

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

#68

Post by JoshTriplett »

bell-cot wrote: post #54
JoshTriplett wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. That sure is quite an assumption you're making. Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech. Individuals and most groups should have absolute freedom of association, which is precisely what they're exercising when choosing not to associate with some speech and some speakers

> Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech... Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist, but does that include: - Swatting? - Doxxing? - Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater? - Liable and Slander? - Spreading nude pictures (real or faked) or personal medical information without consent? - Threatening (relatively) defenseless individuals…

> Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist

Emphatically not, in the sense it's commonly used, but I think the distinction between "shunned by private individuals/groups/companies" and "prosecuted" is critically important.

I'm not going to go through all of these point-by-point, but as a couple of examples:

> - Swatting?

Inciting an action should be charged on the basis of the action and the probability of having incited it. Charge them with attempted murder. Also, fix the mechanisms that make it feasible for a person to too-easily call down excessive force on someone's home or office.

> - Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater?

Inciting a predictable panic that gets people injured should get you charged over the injuries. But also, the original version of that phrase was used as part of an abominably bad ruling restricting people speaking out against a military draft, so it's a bad example.

See also laws about fraud: the speech isn't the issue, the deception leading to swindling people out of something is.

Similarly, credible threats to commit a crime should be charged accordingly, not because of the speech but as prevention of an intended/planned crime. (With a great deal of caution, due to the balance between preventing it and the hazards of charging a crime that hasn't happened yet; Minority Report is not a blueprint.)

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

#69

Post by staticshock »

needSomeCoffee wrote: post #32

JAWBONE == Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression. Max Kudos. Ron and Ted owe a staffer (or staffers) a few drinks.

My favorite of these has always been the USA PATRIOT Act, or the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". And that one predates LLMs, so… sheesh.

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

#70

Post by verall »

panny wrote: post #6
cookingrobot wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are those things? Googling didn’t help.

[flagged]

Are you suggesting ivermectin was a safe and effective enough treatment for COVID that it would obviate the need for the vaccine?
Post reply on HN