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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by exodust »

kelnos wrote: post #409

> "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling. I don't really understand this; from my perspective, it sounds like this judge doesn't really understand the first amendment (hopefully this is not the case, and the quote is taken out of context). Corporations are…

> What does "viewpoint" mean?

A trending example might be the viewpoint that British colonisation was an act of "settlement" vs "invasion". On one hand it can be argued that life improved for indigenous populations with the arrival of technology. On the other hand it can be argued those populations suffered and are owed compensation.

Choosing one or the other core viewpoint can lead to polarizing branches, such as celebrating the Queen's death with hateful tweets vs acknowledging the Queen's death with respectful mourning.

Both viewpoints can draw on valid arguments and data. Banning one of those viewpoints is not a good plan. It would be unhealthy for any society to ban a viewpoint because it conflicts with political agendas or the views of the owners of the platform.

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

#842

Post by bheadmaster »

hackerlight wrote: post #838
bheadmaster wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However one thing that I’m confused is, what about some dangerous stuff like radicalisation which then will produce terrorists or extremist? It is questionable whether or not censoring such views actually brings any benefit at all. One counterargument would be that people who are censored actually feel empowered to pursue their ideals more strongly, since it reinforces their belief that there is some conspiracy tha…

I think psychology and history is quite clear that sunlight isn't the best disinfectant. Ideas are like viruses, the more exposure they get the more they spread, irrespective of their truth value. Repetition and social proof directly cause idea contagion. "negative consequences on a free society, making it less free" This is an overly myopic and ideological view of freedom, in many respects. It privileges negative fr…

> I think psychology and history is quite clear that sunlight isn't the best disinfectant

It doesn't seem quite clear to me. Would you care to provide some more information on the topic?

> And it ignores that bandwidth is limited, so kicking off crackpots can actually improve the negative freedom of everyone else to communicate.

And who exactly should have the authority to decide which ideas are allowed and which are not?

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

#843

Post by zarzavat »

Kamq wrote: post #773
kortilla wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporations are people. No they are not. They share some specific rights as people, but are not people. A corporation can’t be murdered, can’t vote, can’t be imprisoned, can’t marry another person, etc.

The concept is a "legal person", which means there's a whole host of things corporations can do. The big ones being that they can be sued and charged for breaking the law, you can't do either of those things with, say, a rock or a dog. They can also sue you back which is, admittedly, less fun.

All very true, but at the risk of laboring the point, a legal person is not a person, just like a sperm bank is not a bank. A noun phrase is not necessarily a sub-category of the original noun. This is underlined by the use of the plural “legal persons”, rather “legal people” which is usually reserved for meat sacks with law degrees.

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

#844

Post by NeverFade »

wvenable wrote: post #804
NeverFade wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps the problem is the definition of free speech. Free speech is you can't go to jail for what you say. It certainly doesn't mean speech without consequences of any sort nor does it mean that you automatically get an audience for it.

Let's start by defining what Free Speech isn't.

There is no Free Speech if you can't speak freely where speech is actually happening.

So if nearly all speech is moving online to massive social media sites, and you can't speak there freely, but instead your speech is subject to the whims of random employees - there is no Free Speech in this situation.

> It certainly doesn't mean speech without consequences of any sort nor does it mean that you automatically get an audience for it.

But it does mean you can speak. Even if there may be consequences, and even if you don't automatically get an audience.

That's the right I'm supporting here, against an alarmingly large group that seems to consider this right to be no longer necessary, and even undesirable.

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

#845

Post by exodust »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #799
NayamAmarshe wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing, it's not. If they specifically said that I'd be banned for having certain opinions different from Zuckerberg, I'd have never complained but they didn't. They are vague, they are disingenuous and I honestly cannot believe so many people are defending them for censoring others. Politics aside, Facebook bans people for smallest of things. I got banned for 30 days for quoting someone's comment. It's a c…

I think the concern here is that the new ruling could make it mandatory for Facebook etc. to distribute hate-speech. Who wants such an outcome? The haters.

No. Hate-speech is illegal, not a "viewpoint we don't agree with".

Your restaurant analogy falls short too. Dress-code is the equivalent of "civility" in discussion, and is a neutral bar that is set. It doesn't favor cotton shirts over linen shirts, which is what censoring a viewpoint would be.

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

#846

Post by slumpt_ »

Spivak wrote: post #780
slumpt_ wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulatory counterweight I think may attribute outsized influence to the regressive state. I can't imagine the abortion ruling is going to have any impact on how California ever conducts itself, e.g. Even in the event of a federal ban California would likely protest and protect women's autonomy.

I find this particularly relevant because in a recent public debate in my state the pro-life proponent actually argued that an abortion ban wasn’t taking any rights away from women since they could just go to California. It was a irl selfawarewolves.

Ah yeah, interesting point. The old “everyone can move freely because it’s evidently trivially cheap to do so” imaginary tale they like to weave.

Hadn’t considered how that’d change the discourse for abortion but I can see it now.

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

#847

Post by peyton »

wvenable wrote: post #804
NeverFade wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps the problem is the definition of free speech. Free speech is you can't go to jail for what you say. It certainly doesn't mean speech without consequences of any sort nor does it mean that you automatically get an audience for it.

That’s not the definition of free speech in the US. The reason you should care is that your definition is likely to produce a free speech absolutist counter-movement.

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

#848

Post by kybernetyk »

>In May, the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that most of a similar Florida law violates the companies' free speech rights and cannot be enforced

Why should a _company_ have free speech guaranteed by the constitution? It's a company - not a person.

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

#849

Post by c3534l »

kybernetyk wrote: post #848

>In May, the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that most of a similar Florida law violates the companies' free speech rights and cannot be enforced Why should a _company_ have free speech guaranteed by the constitution? It's a company - not a person.

A company is just a group of people.

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

#850

Post by barry-cotter »

kybernetyk wrote: post #848

>In May, the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that most of a similar Florida law violates the companies' free speech rights and cannot be enforced Why should a _company_ have free speech guaranteed by the constitution? It's a company - not a person.

People do not generally lose rights by coming together to do something.
Post reply on HN