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

31–40 of 1001 posts

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

#31

Post by Yawnzy »

jfengel wrote: post #6

Seeing as the tech companies have no interest in censoring based on "viewpoint" I don't see what difference this makes. Their entire existence relies on being the single point where everyone goes. No Republicans have ever been removed solely for being Republican. People are removed for promoting violence and harassing other users. The fact that Republicans consider violence to be a "viewpoint", and their viewpoint ra…

Are you doing that “rules for radicals” think where you accuse the other side of doing the exact thing you’re guilty of?

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

#32

Post by fallingknife »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #26
intrasight wrote: post #20

Censoring and moderating and content, as it relates to this lawsuit, is very expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if it ranks pretty high in their cost chart. The only reason that social media platforms do content moderation is to manage the financial (advertisers), and the political risk. Well, if the politicians and the courts tell them they can't moderate political stuff, then the political risk has been removed. Al…

It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.

People say this, but not long ago Twitter/Reddit/Youtube were basically a free for all for anything except porn. And their user numbers were skyrocketing at the time.

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

#33

Post by intrasight »

fallingknife wrote: post #32
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.

People say this, but not long ago Twitter/Reddit/Youtube were basically a free for all for anything except porn. And their user numbers were skyrocketing at the time.

Exactly. The court isn't saying you can't moderate out the cesspool posts. They are saying that you can't choose political sides.

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

#34

Post by intrasight »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #30
intrasight wrote: post #20

Censoring and moderating and content, as it relates to this lawsuit, is very expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if it ranks pretty high in their cost chart. The only reason that social media platforms do content moderation is to manage the financial (advertisers), and the political risk. Well, if the politicians and the courts tell them they can't moderate political stuff, then the political risk has been removed. Al…

> The only reason that social media platforms do content moderation is to manage the financial (advertisers), and the political risk. What about the legal risk of hosting illegal content?

Yes certainly. But I was referring to moderation that is the topic of this lawsuit.

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

#35

Post by mcphage »

fallingknife wrote: post #32
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.

People say this, but not long ago Twitter/Reddit/Youtube were basically a free for all for anything except porn. And their user numbers were skyrocketing at the time.

That’s just saying “until it became a problem, it wasn’t a problem”. Those sites were a free for all, up until it became a problem. And then they were no longer free for alls.

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

#36

Post by [deleted] »

fallingknife wrote: post #32
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.

People say this, but not long ago Twitter/Reddit/Youtube were basically a free for all for anything except porn. And their user numbers were skyrocketing at the time.

[deleted]

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

#37

Post by Aachen »

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…

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

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

#38

Post by mustache_kimono »

bluejekyll wrote: post #29
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…

The term “conservative” means nothing if you apply it to a court which has overturned years of legal norm across various areas of law.

Yeah, certainly not what we once thought of as conservative judicial restraint.

One comment I remember reading on Twitter which makes sense: "Funny how what the 1st Amendment means seems to align perfectly with currently fashionable conservative (MAGA) social views."

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

#39

Post by mattnewton »

fallingknife wrote: post #32
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only reason. Without any moderation, sites would degenerate into cesspools that only cesspool dwellers would want to visit. Few site owners want their properties to be cesspools.

People say this, but not long ago Twitter/Reddit/Youtube were basically a free for all for anything except porn. And their user numbers were skyrocketing at the time.

And after they attempted to clean up, they were able to attract more advertisers and mainstream users the advertisers wanted to reach. Doesn’t the story of those sites back the person above you’s point?

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

#40

Post by guipsp »

intrasight wrote: post #33
fallingknife wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this, but not long ago Twitter/Reddit/Youtube were basically a free for all for anything except porn. And their user numbers were skyrocketing at the time.

Exactly. The court isn't saying you can't moderate out the cesspool posts. They are saying that you can't choose political sides.

Every decision is inherently "political"
Post reply on HN