U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by seydor » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

It is weird that there is no country that allows such freedoms in the world. There is clearly a gap in regulation and constitutions when it comes to the internet because they could have never imagined it 400 years ago. But this needs to be settled in the positive direction and in an egalitarian way: speech that is legal should be free everywhere. and that's the basis upon which every tech business should be built . The fact that they were able to get away with censoring the public for so many years was the aberration.

I wonder what s the role of advertisers here, since they effectively demonetize platforms that are not strictly censoring (e.g. reddit)

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

#212

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #148

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.

Yet Reddit, that follows this model, still manages to engage in suppression of on-topic viewpoints that moderators and/or Reddit employees disagree with.

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by sseagull » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

unity1001 wrote: post #126

sseagull wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is having the government decide whether or not a private company can block a particular person for a particular reason. Everyone is generally ok with companies blocking content that is irrelevant/off-topic, but there is a very, very large gray area. Do you want the government deciding what is acceptable?

> Do you want the government deciding what is acceptable? Yes. Entire world except the US does. People elect parliaments, who make laws according to their voters' agendas. Then the laws are enforced. What's acceptable and what's not acceptable are decided in the same manner. Like how going out naked in any city in the civilized world constitutes an offense unless you have a mental disorder. You already obey with a zi…

I mean, sure. But there’s a reason this stuff was invented in the US and not elsewhere.

I want everyone to think about how increasing the difficulty in moderation will affect all your favorite forums/platforms, including HN.

And if you think these laws can be written so they easily apply only to “the big ones”, or that it will stop there, you are being naive. Government will always take a mile if you give them an inch.

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

#214

Post by chelical » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #159

taylodl wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple. Shut off Texas. You don’t have a right to use social media. I wouldn’t even appeal the decision. Let Texas lie in the bed they made.

Quoted post unavailable.

While I think the hate of Texas is unusual in this thread, this is an awful comparison. Please don't use comparisons that trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust.

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

#215

Post by SantalBlush » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #176

colinmhayes wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously do not.

“Othering” has moved from race to political viewpoint, but the human tendency to exclude others from discourse/commerce/society is still alive and well.

>“Othering” has moved from race to political viewpoint

No it hasn't. People have been othered for either reason for millennia, and continue to be so. This is probably one of the safest eras for having an unpopular political view in the US. For example, try being accused of holding communist views during most of the 20th century.

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

#216

Post by gfodor » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

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.

I hope the internet returns to this model for like a dozen reasons. Insofar as we can be sure this kind of regulation gets there it should be celebrated imo.

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

#217

Post by Brybry » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #163

Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think this would apply to bots.

The Texas law text[1] says it only protects 'users' which are defined as people. And even then the law only prohibits censorship for specific reasons.

It doesn't say companies can't ban users for running bots. Even if the messages the bot is posting are protected the fact of running the bot itself should still be a bannable offense if it's not allowed in the TOS.

[1] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F...

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

#218

Post by coffeeblack » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #163

Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…

Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.

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

#219

Post by hailwren » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #163

Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…

In Reamde, Neal Stephenson posits a future where we pay individuals/services to filter and prioritize the unordered deluge of data from the web.

It seems like this ruling pushes us along that path.

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

#220

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #124

BrandonM wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the LUG have 50M MAU?

This is really the critical factor. Anti-speech pro-corporate-authority advocates always try to put these monopolistic, unescapable megacorporations in the same category as some local mom-and-pop operation. It's a massive intentional category error; megacorps are not little companies you can just walk awawy from. There is a point where a corporation's influence becomes so unescapable and so capable of greatly degradi…

[deleted]