Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

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.

No, if this passes, tech companies will just stop operating in Texas outright. It's really as simple as that.

The Texas law makes it illegal to not do business with Texas

Which is hilarious, but who the hell knows what the courts will decide these days

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

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Because as much as your absolute moral certitude might feel good to express you aren’t changing anyone’s mind with it. On the contrary. There’s tens if not hundreds of millions of them and same for you guys. We are all stuck together in one polity. If we are ever going to achieve a synthesis and get back to a healthier place it’s not going to involve the kind of rhetoric you are indulging in here.

Rhetoric? I'm making an objective point about the political spectrum. Moldbug labeled his own philosophy as the Reaction, and condemned conservatism as being doomed to perpetual failure because some progressivism inevitably occurs regardless. And it's just plainly nonsensical to label a movement aimed at undermining longstanding institutions as "conservative". As far as synthesis and reconciliation, for a long time I…

Some Republican movements have been authoritarian, but an effort to prevent people from saying that which is undesirable is definition authoritarian just as much if not more so. I don't know what example of authoritarianism you would offer as characteristic of the Republican party, but I'm sure you could offer more than one or two. That's because both political parties must push authoritarianism because both must accumulate authoritarian power to stay in the game, lest they be overpowered by the opposing party.

While constituents, we the people, agree on most points like personal freedom, individuality, respect of human life, and liberty etc., politicians of both parties, out of necessity, must paint their opponents as the authoritarian regime, set on revoking personal freedom and individuality, and devaluing human life.

If you dislike either party, it's not because one is more authoritarian than the other. It's because we lack the mental capacity to retain all the information that makes up the world around us, and must therefore make easier to process, generalizations to survive; Republican, Democrat, grassroots, mainstream, Black, Hispanic, White, etc. And it's obviously no secret that this necessity to generalize is very much exploitable.

What you don't like about the Republican party is all the things that are also the Democratic party, but only in a generalized view that the opposing parties' electorate has succeeded to exploit in your mind.

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 230 is a federal law, it cannot make a state law that would otherwise violate the First Amendment as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment somehow okay. That’s not how the relationship between state, federal, and constitutional law works.

If this court case is over a state law, is Citizens United even precedential? That was a ruling about a federal law, and this appears to be a matter of Texas law, adjudicated with Texas court precedent. I assume it's only in federal court due to diversity jurisdiction.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1]

Wiki

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could this set precedent for compelled speech of publishers? Facebook, Twitter, and Google aren't even publishers.

If filtering is not publishing then what is it? Do we need a new term for this arrangement?

> Do we need a new term for this arrangement?

The term 'filtering' already exists.

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

#375
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very fact that you made this comment implies that you expect the public to understand what it means. Therefore, so would a jury of your peers. In other words, if you get that this behavior is just a twist on botting, it's safe to assume the courts will too.

You expect way too much of the justice system... The 'peers' on HN are very different from the peers on an average jury

You expect way too much of HN. Apparently, the average poster on HN doesn't know how jury selection works. There's nothing "average" about a jury.

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unclear that this isn't a self referential attempt to redefine the centre rather than a genuinely held view. > threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law The laws already prevent the first by the way, it's called true threat > 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 ph…

> Should a coffee shop owner be forced to hear words they don't like? How does forcing Twitter to allow Donald Trump to post translate to forcing you to hear words you don't like? You're free to block him and not read anything he posts. > Should the New York Times owner be forced to publish opinions they don't like? No, NYT is a publisher and has always had full control over what they publish. > Why is Facebook's own…

I think any newspaper with a classified section seems like a sort of primitive social network, with proactive moderation.

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

#377
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a silly distinction. At a broad level, all discussion can be seen as political. And it is natural for events to be dominated by actions from a side for a time, such that it would be natural for more criticisms of a political party over others at any time. This gets dangerously into the "whataboutisms" of toxic discourse. Especially when they are not presented in at all an even or good faith manner.

What? No they aren’t. A discussion about my week or grocery shopping isn’t political. You can make any discussion political, but that’s not at all the same.

"I had to get gas this week, the prices are so high because of Biden"

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

#378
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".

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.

Didn't happen with EU's internet laws. Instead, we get cookie banners all over the world. I don't think exiting a market full of money because of ideology is good business.

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

#379
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised. Folks will pick brands for political reasons, too. More, folks will band against brands for said reasons. I mean, you are correct that there can be neutral discussions. Typically, neutral isn't as neutral as you'd think.

That would be an example of people making something political out of a non-political issue. Both people and companies can be guilty of this. "Oh, I ran into Lucy at the supermarket today" "Awesome, did they have that new brand of ice cream?" "I didn't see it, but they did have a massive sale on strawberries." "Darn, I guess I'll check Market Cart next time I go." --- "Oh, I ran into Lucy at the supermarket today" "Di…

"I ran into Lucy at the supermarket, she told me everything is costing so much because of inflation. She said this is terrible for her family and wonders why the government won't fix it"

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

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The apparent disdain for Texas in this thread is bizarre.

As a not-Texan, almost all of what I hear about Texas is oil, conservatism, failed power systems during winter, anti-abortion-rights, and using immigrants as political theater by sending them to DC/NY. I don't know that the disdain is unexpected given the political leaning of people working in technology.

You're probably living in a filter bubble. You'd be hearing only the same kind of things about California if you were in a different bubble.
Post reply on HN