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

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

Post by rayiner »

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 distinction the court is drawing isn’t about corporations versus non-corporations, but speech versus moderation.

You say moderation is about “editorial control” but that’s exactly the debate. Is Facebook moderation equivalent to the NYT deciding what to publish and not publish?

When someone reads a Facebook post, does anyone think that Facebook is the speaker? That legal fiction is attractive for various reasons, but I don’t think it’s such a slam dunk. I think there is a fair argument that Facebook is a pipe for someone else’s speech.

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

#592

Post by themitigating »

NeverFade wrote: post #517
themitigating wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

If you're not protecting free speech in the places where free speech actually happens, then you are not protecting free speech at all. If speech has shifted online, to massive social media websites like Twitter, and you don't protect it there, then you have no free speech in your country.

There's no protection for free speech in the US only that the government can't make laws restricting it

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

#593

Post by Buttons840 »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #385
Buttons840 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have to run a thin thread of politics through my product from beginning to end I will. It won't be the first time a product is tied to a political identity, and it's often beneficial to do so. Heck, I'll even make two similar products and tie each to a different political party, so everyone can buy the product that matches their political view. My products are political statements, and 1% of all profits go to po…

Sure, all of that's true, so long as you can convince a judge, or a jury of peers selected by a team of attorneys highly paid to make your life a nightmare. The law is subjective, just like your spiteful view of it. And you can bet there are spiteful judges, just like you.

A lot of your comments seem to be in the realm of "it doesn't matter what the law is, judges and juries will do what they want", which I partly agree with, but within the context of this debate we should assume that judges and juries will uphold the law. Otherwise, why are we debating the pros and cons of the law if nobody is going to uphold it?

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

#594

Post by themitigating »

leereeves wrote: post #582
themitigating wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it ok for them to cut my line if I don't pay the bill? They are common carriers, like ISPs , social media companies are not

Are ISPs considered common carriers right now? I know that's changed a few times and I haven't kept up with the latest. Will social media companies be considered common carriers? That's still possible too. Ultimately, a "common carrier" is whatever the government says it is.

Yes so change that then come back and make your argument. The 1st amendment can also be undone but I'm not making arguments as if that had happened

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

#595

Post by mkl95 »

> A U.S. appeals court on Friday upheld a Texas law that bars large social media companies from banning or censoring users based on "viewpoint," a setback for technology industry groups that say the measure would turn platforms into bastions of dangerous content

There are many reasons why those companies censor content and they usually have nothing to do with "viewpoints". If some partner demands I shut some content down, should I be forced to refuse and ruin that partnership? Let's not forget that public facing sections of social networks are just fronts for huge B2B operations.

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

#596

Post by nmstoker »

coffeeblack wrote: post #262
CJefferson wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having run a mail server, I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to contain the deluge of spam and phishing attacks they would get if just told them to "sort it out" themselves.

You misunderstood. Don’t require users to build their bubbles, but have providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from. You could even have external bubble providers that offer different technologies and qualities of filters. Just don’t have one centralised overlord.

This seems like it could be substantially better than current systems.

It could be effectively a crowdsource / peer recommended model where you opt in to aspects of the bubbles. So my elderly parents could get some of the safety guidance mirroring mine (eg weeding out conspiracy thought or spam) but then also picking up aspects that mirror older peers (eg reflecting their more traditional tastes)

Right now there's a remarkable amount of undesirable content that gets through that ought to be easy to filter. On Twitter you see it a load with searches for regular terms that show up inappropriate content for the term, yet you don't want to set content filtering or it cuts things that are genuinely interesting but edgy!

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

#597

Post by mpalmer »

abathur wrote: post #512
enraged_camel wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe instead of telling people to “go read into some of their politics” you can provide some examples and make the argument yourself?

The "do your own research" meme works better when the initiator can make the target go refer to a corpus of questionable content (that is often already ideologically skewed), actively filter out whatever they find benign, and zero in on whatever lights up their confirmation bias.

It seems like you're trying to turn someone's objection to a weak argument into a weak argument itself by referring to it as an example of a "meme". I'm not sure I need to say anything else to be honest.

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

#598

Post by lern_too_spel »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #222
bradleyjg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a pretty abrupt turnaround from the same legal movement that brought us Citizens United . I’d be interested in a fair (i.e. not overly critical or fawning) book length history of the Federalist Society and how it’s evolved.

The Federalist Society is very poorly named, with aims nearly diametrically opposed to the Federalists it is named after.

Not too surprised that so many HNers don't know this, so I should have explained better in the previous comment. The Federalist party called for a strong national government to fix all the ills in the previously weak confederation, and they succeeded spectacularly, making the US the most powerful government on Earth instead of a bunch of warring factions making their own treaties, regulations, money, and tariffs. The very first aim of the Federalist Society is "checking federal power."

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

#599

Post by [deleted] »

themitigating wrote: post #594
leereeves wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are ISPs considered common carriers right now? I know that's changed a few times and I haven't kept up with the latest. Will social media companies be considered common carriers? That's still possible too. Ultimately, a "common carrier" is whatever the government says it is.

Yes so change that then come back and make your argument. The 1st amendment can also be undone but I'm not making arguments as if that had happened

[deleted]

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

#600

Post by westurner »

westurner wrote: post #576
westurner wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How limited is the given district court of appeals case law precedent in regards to must-carry and Equal time rules for non-licensed spectrum Information Service providers? Are they now common carrier liability, too? Equal time rules and American media history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule Who pays for all of this? > "Give me my free water!"

From "FCC fairness doctrine" (1949-1987) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine : > The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segmen…

Because the free flow of information is essential to democracy, it is in the Public Interest to support a market of new and established flourishing information service providers, not a market of exploited must-carry'ers subject to district-level criteria for ejection or free water for life. Shouldn't all publications, all information services be subject to any and all such Equal Time and Must-Carry interpretations?

Your newspaper may not regulate viewpoints: in its editorial section or otherwise. Must carry. Equal time.

The wall of one's business, perhaps.

You must keep that up there on your business's wall.

**

In this instance, is there a contract for future performance? How does Statute of Frauds apply to contracts worth over $500?

Post reply on HN