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

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by mikkergp »

efitz wrote: post #118
mikkergp wrote: post #117

Hacker News avoids political discussion, would this mean a site like hacker news(assuming it’s big enough) couldn’t moderate heated political discussion as off topic? Im curious how this would apply to Reddit, will there just be constant brigading of the political forums? Ironically as others have pointed out this will probably have a severe chilling effect on speech.

There’s political discussion all over hacker news, in the comments.

Yes but new posts are often closed as overly heated/off topic.

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

#132

Post by DannyBee »

ajross wrote: post #104
robust-cactus wrote: post #97

If this passes, basically what's going to happen is a lot of pre-filtering of people entering social networks akin to next doors strategy. I've worked at a civic tech social network that had no rules, and eventually the extremists pushed out all the normal folks - it's just stupid shouting matches. We tore it all down and made isolated communities. It's basically the only way to have real discourse.

It already passed, it's a law on the books in Texas. And now it's been upheld at by both trial and circuit courts. FWIW: there's one last chance at SCOTUS to undo this, but if that doesn't work out what we're almost certain to see instead of "pre-filtering" is just "No Tweeting from Texas".

Actually, they will likely ask for en banc first. This is just a three judge panel

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

#133

Post by mwint »

robust-cactus wrote: post #113
ajross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It already passed, it's a law on the books in Texas. And now it's been upheld at by both trial and circuit courts. FWIW: there's one last chance at SCOTUS to undo this, but if that doesn't work out what we're almost certain to see instead of "pre-filtering" is just "No Tweeting from Texas".

It's kinda interesting how a world like "no tweeting from Texas" might jive with EU laws which want to restrict IO and data storage to just inside the region or country. Are we about to get more decentralized just because the laws are accidentally forcing us to? Imagine connecting to EU or Texas Twitter to see what's going on there.

Oh, it’s not accidental.

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

#134

Post by dotnet00 »

krapp wrote: post #76
solarmist wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (without the internet), but it can on a website. That by itself distorts the public/private argument, but we as a society aren’t sure how or to what extent yet. These lawsuits are the second step (the first step wa…

So, because any website can potentially reach millions of people, all websites must be considered public spaces and must be coerced to allow all legal speech? I honestly don't think it distorts the public/private argument, any more than MacDonald's serving billions of customers distorts the question of whether it's a private corporation or whether its scale transforms it into a public service. But the inevitable endg…

>So, because any website can potentially reach millions of people, all websites must be considered public spaces and must be coerced to allow all legal speech?

The difference is that your site has some small non-zero chance of reaching millions in the future, while Twitter, Facebook etc are reaching millions or billions right now. The law doesn't have to work on your potential to reach millions of views, just like how taxes don't work by assuming you might become a trillionaire overnight.

Could you wake up tomorrow to your social media platform having grown to millions of users, yes. Is it a realistic situation that should roadblock regulation? no.

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

#135

Post by encryptluks2 »

efitz wrote: post #118
mikkergp wrote: post #117

Hacker News avoids political discussion, would this mean a site like hacker news(assuming it’s big enough) couldn’t moderate heated political discussion as off topic? Im curious how this would apply to Reddit, will there just be constant brigading of the political forums? Ironically as others have pointed out this will probably have a severe chilling effect on speech.

There’s political discussion all over hacker news, in the comments.

It is often one sided. As soon as you say something that doesn't fall into line, like against the monarchy, then you get censored.

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

#136

Post by adrr »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #3

As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed. At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it. Social me…

Controlling what content is rendered on a site is speech itself. Government making rules infringes on my right what my software can and can’t display. It would be like the government telling Wikipedia can’t edit their articles.

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

#137

Post by dpifke »

solarmist wrote: post #60

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…

The decision[0] gives different logic (quoting from page 85):

If a firm’s core business is disseminating others’ speech, then that should weaken, not strengthen, the firm’s argument that it has a First Amendment right to censor that speech. In PruneYard, for example, the shopping mall was open to the public—but for the purpose of shopping, not sharing expression. So it was perhaps tenuous for the State to use the public nature of the mall to justify a speech-hosting requirement. Cf. PruneYard, 447 U.S. at 95 (White, J., concurring in part) (noting that California’s hosting requirement involved communication “about subjects having no connection with the shopping centers’ business”). But here, the Platforms are open to the public for the specific purpose of disseminating the public’s speech. It’s rather odd to say that a business has more rights to discriminate when it’s in the speech business than when it’s in some altogether non-speech business (like shopping or legal education).

A point a lot of commenters here seem to be missing is that it would be perfectly legal under the law to ban all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. The law just says that if you're a site with more than 50 million users, you cannot dictate which political parties your users are allowed to write favorably about and ban users for having opposing viewpoints.

[0] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pd... (PDF)

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

#138

Post by DannyBee »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #5

Important to note that this 5th Circuit ruling conflicts with the 11th Circuit's ruling. And SCOTUS had previously reinstated an injunction against this very same law. And this 5th Circuit opinion has very idiosyncratic reasoning [0, just the first few pages will blow your hair back]. A sample: "In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of cours…

This opinion is just badly written and badly reasoned. It's not even well written enough that it is worth trying to debate. Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising.

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

#139

Post by quadrifoliate »

evandale wrote: post #25
mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? Starbucks is a privately owned location and has the right to enforce behavioral standards or kick people out. Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. The internet has plenty of…

> So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Starbucks is on private property. > Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? The Starbucks chalkboard is privately owned. >Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. No it isn't. Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook…

> Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook and see tweets and posts. They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location.

Okay, so the mall is a better analogy. But it still doesn't mean I can do anything I want at a mall. If I run in there and start shouting slogans at passers-by, I am going to be removed by mall security "for my viewpoint" because it's bad for business. And no, there isn't a list at the mall saying precisely what kinds of crazy behavior you're not allowed to bring in.

It's hard for me to see how Twitter isn't the same.

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

#140

Post by a_shovel »

gruez wrote: post #63
Victerius wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

"proactive"... how? By making rulings that you agree with? Is it fair to say that your opinion on this matter boils down to "companies should ignore the courts if it's a ruling I don't like"?

Reducing all objections to anything to "disagreement" or "not liking it" is a sure sign of bad faith discussion.
Post reply on HN