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

101–110 of 165 posts

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

#101

Post by hypersoar »

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…

The case which originated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy, Schenk v. US, was overturned more than half a century ago. And in that case, the proverbial fire-yellers were socialists distributing pamphlets.

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

#102

Post by TFNA »

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

When OP said we have more free speech than ever, and some here quibble with that, it's not necessarily about coercion under legislation. The early web saw a hell of a lot of racist or angry flamer posts on any site where any reader could comment. A classic example are GNAA posts in nearly every comment thread on Slashdot, HN's forebear.

Today's internet has, for the masses, contracted into a limited number of commercial platforms that have strict moderation for brand-protection reasons. Many platforms have outright removed fondly remembered discussion fora (e.g. IMDB, or Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree) just so they don't have to bear the expense of moderating and ensuring no posts threaten their brand image.

I imagine that most people here will deem the decline in highly toxic troll posts a good thing, but any veteran of the old internet will still notice that the range of speech met in daily net surfing is less than it once was.

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

#103

Post by amanaplanacanal »

rayiner wrote: post #94
atmavatar wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 asso…

[flagged]

I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content.

Where it becomes a larger problem is if the private platform is an effective monopoly; using monopoly power to censor viewpoints would be a bad. Normally we would call a monopoly platform a common carrier and outlaw censorship by them.

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

#104

Post by ben4next »

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.

[dead]

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

#105

Post by cramer4next »

plagiarist wrote: post #37
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…

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.

[flagged]

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

#106

Post by dmix »

shevy-java wrote: post #65
lifty wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence

Speech alone isnt sufficient to be charged with that, which is why it passed supreme Court scrutiny. Similar to criminal conspiracy laws, where you have to pursue tangible actions IRL not just talk about it with a friend.

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

#107

Post by dotancohen »

staticshock wrote: post #69
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.

For a short time I maintained a GUI for abcde called abcdefghi - A Better CD Encoder For Gnome... and I neither remember what the H I stood for nor could I find any reference for it last time I looked. I think maybe two or three other people ever used it, I had already moved to KDE by late 2001.

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

#108

Post by econ »

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…

Well put. There are probably a few 100 other edge cases worth examination but you got it down to a digestible list.

One trick i always apply to products is to ask yourself what kind of people you are looking to create. Who are the resource and what do you want to change them into? Anything we say is manipulation so appealing to ignorance isn't an answer.

It seems we like people to be constructive and feel empowered to do useful things. We would want them to have access to useful educational information to guide them on their path to enlightenment. We want everyone to contribute to the wellbeing of humanity and the environment which starts by convincing them they can. Then we also don't want to force people into such a narrow scope that they can't express themselves freely anymore.

It would probably be funny to have a personalized LLM review your content contribution before you hit the submit button and present you with a harsh bullet list enummerating everything that is wrong with your contribution. Then if your writings meet certain criteria the right audience should be exposed to it.

We could make it even more spectaculaire by merging the contribution with similar ones under the guidance of its authors. In stead of 100 very similar recipes for apple pie have an AI assisted battle royale that arrives at one that describes the variations (and lists its 100 sources)

You might even identify and recruit some pâtissiers to write walls of text denouncing and/or praising some variations. Currants, sultanas or raisins? The world needs to know.

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

#109

Post by actionfromafar »

cramer4next wrote: post #105
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.

[flagged]

The feds hire the nazis now, that could have something to do with it.
Post reply on HN