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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by stall84 »

fdye wrote: post #167

Seems like this is gonna get overruled, but who knows with this supreme court nowadays. Aside from that issue, I'd like to discuss why social media always seems so impotent in their response to misinformation. Seems Youtube, Facebook, etc, are all letting people post misinformation, it gains traction through whatever means and is shared to millions of people. Then after the damage is done they swoop in and block it a…

What damage though ? Let's consider Covid and The Capitol riot.. In both cases, a$$-hat-ery by the vocal, idiotic minorities, whether it be meeting up to 'storm' the capitol only to get arrested after you realize inside the capitol that 'oh sh*t this doesn't do anything...' or after you die from Covid because you thought the vaccine had chips in it .. What damage is done in those cases ? Ok we lost 1 police officer in DC due to some very controversial-linking to the riot itself (he had like a heart attack). And thousands of people die from not being vaccinated, but the majority of us do not..

I'm just having trouble seeing at least from these two 'disinformation' scenarios.. how damage is really being done to the rest of us, and I know the Covid one will be the far-greater point of contention with the argument not being vaccinated or convincing others to not be is dangerous to you/me .. I get that will be more of an argument..

But I'm just not able to see the 'damage' that really warrants so EASILY going down the path of censorship

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

#642

Post by imgabe »

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…

To use a bot you need to register an API key for it. Twitter or such could simply revoke the API access. The user is still free to post manually and their free speech is not impinged.

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

#644

Post by 8note »

westurner wrote: post #564

Does this mean that newspaper Information Service Providers are now obligated to must-carry opinion pieces from political viewpoints that oppose those of the editors in the given district? Does this mean that newspapers in Texas are now obligated to carry liberal opinion pieces? Equal time in Texas at last. Must-carry provision of a contract for service : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

I imagine they'd have to accept arbitrary submissions first. If you just worked there, probably they'd be forced to put up anything you wrote

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

#645

Post by wussboy »

nyuszika7h wrote: post #360
nmilo wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually like this. Imagine if online discussion was so visibly bad that no one used it anymore. Talk to real people. Go outside.

Some people have social anxiety.

They have social anxiety because they never went outside. “Outside” and “with other people” are our ancestral environment. Social media is abnormal and makes abnormal people.

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

#646

Post by catiopatio »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #636
xwowsersx wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This opinion is badly reasoned so it's not even worth debating" strikes me as a very poor way of engaging in dialectic. I mean, maybe it is poorly written and poorly reasoned, but best to demonstrate that to us, otherwise we're just kind of taking your word for it...

This is the other article that made it to the front page of HN on this topic: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th-circuit-rewrites-a-c... It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. This is the quote I agree with: > Frankly, Oldham’s arguments sound much more like the arguments made by ignorant trolls in our comments than anyone with any knowledge or experience with 1st Amendment…

> It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision.

The author, Mike Masnick, is a tech blogger — not an attorney, as far as I've been able to determine.

Even Eugene Volokh — who is both an actual attorney and uniquely qualified to weigh in here — didn't attempt to digest the 113 pages of the opinion, much less immediately produce a reasoned analysis. I'm sure one will be forthcoming.

The quote you cited from Masnick certainly isn't legal analysis. It's empty invective, as are statements like "This "judge" is an unqualified political hack".

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

#647

Post by joe_the_user »

xwowsersx wrote: post #613
DannyBee wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"This opinion is badly reasoned so it's not even worth debating" strikes me as a very poor way of engaging in dialectic. I mean, maybe it is poorly written and poorly reasoned, but best to demonstrate that to us, otherwise we're just kind of taking your word for it...

"This opinion is badly reasoned so it's not even worth debating" strikes me as a very poor way of engaging in dialectic.

It's not a way of engaging in dialectic/dialogue. It's saying it's so bad you won't engage in dialogue. That's a legitimate position in some circumstances.

That this is a court decision, however, might mean that in these circumstance one does need to directly challenge despite it's qualities.

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

#648

Post by wussboy »

nmilo wrote: post #238
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 would actually like this. Imagine if online discussion was so visibly bad that no one used it anymore. Talk to real people. Go outside.

No post body was provided.

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

#650

Post by eduction »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #636
xwowsersx wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This opinion is badly reasoned so it's not even worth debating" strikes me as a very poor way of engaging in dialectic. I mean, maybe it is poorly written and poorly reasoned, but best to demonstrate that to us, otherwise we're just kind of taking your word for it...

This is the other article that made it to the front page of HN on this topic: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th-circuit-rewrites-a-c... It goes into thorough analysis into why this is such a lazy, stupid decision. This is the quote I agree with: > Frankly, Oldham’s arguments sound much more like the arguments made by ignorant trolls in our comments than anyone with any knowledge or experience with 1st Amendment…

What do you think the most convincing part of that techdirt piece is? To me it mostly reads like an exasperated emotional rant. He calls the ruling “stupid” and “batshit crazy” and likens the judges to “ignorant trolls.” And uses italics everywhere. It’s not exactly an appeal to reason.

To me the one interesting bit was this: “ The websites do engage in editorial control. The difference from newspapers is that it’s ex post control. If there are complaints, they will review the content afterwards to see if it matches with their editorial policies (i.e., terms of use).”

I mean, I disagree — terms of use of a tech platform are miles away from an actual editorial opinion, they are bloodless legal documents and virtually impossible to read for pleasure, unlike actual editorial - but at least this engages with the decision on the merits.

I’d encourage anyone to read the actual decision, it (and the dissent) are more interesting reading than this. (And unlike at TechDirt the citations don’t approvingly quote someone named “Wonton Killing Hat”). https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pd...

Post reply on HN