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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by BlueTemplar »

imgabe wrote: post #642
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.

Remember how Twitter heavily restricted its API in 2014, with a lot of collateral damage for startups depending on it ?

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

#942

Post by hackerlight »

brightball wrote: post #937
hackerlight wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media has dramatically magnified these preexisting 'material contradictions' to America's sociolegal conception of free speech. The absurdities are becoming larger and larger and cracks are showing. Stochastic terrorist there. Fascist elected here. 500k anti-vaxxer deaths over there. What will come first, will the dam finally break in the form of society collapsing into conspiracy driven dictatorship, or will…

What is a stochastic terrorist?

A perpetrator of stochastic terrorism. In this context, a lone wolf who is radicalized online.

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

#943

Post by detaro »

brightball wrote: post #937
hackerlight wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media has dramatically magnified these preexisting 'material contradictions' to America's sociolegal conception of free speech. The absurdities are becoming larger and larger and cracks are showing. Stochastic terrorist there. Fascist elected here. 500k anti-vaxxer deaths over there. What will come first, will the dam finally break in the form of society collapsing into conspiracy driven dictatorship, or will…

What is a stochastic terrorist?

"Stochastic terrorism" is the concept that a media campaign with large enough reach that vilifies and dehumanizes a target group will cause a rise in attacks against them, without any central planning who is attacking whom when, but rather because it pushes random (hence "stochastic") at-risk people to commit random attacks.

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

#944

Post by westurner »

8note wrote: post #644
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

So, Comments but not Articles?

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

#945

Post by BlueTemplar »

etchalon wrote: post #829
lettergram wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. It depends, can I go to the mall and start preaching the gospel? The answer is yes - at least in NYC, SF, Chicago, etc (where these legal cases have played out). I’m legally aloud to do that; and as it’s the public square I cannot legally be removed (doesn’t mean y…

"Inside a store is not the same thing". Social media is not the commons. The internet is the commons. Social media platforms are the stores.

The stores or more like company towns ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

> ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town

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

#946

Post by Overtonwindow »

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #12
Overtonwindow wrote: post #3

As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed. 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 phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it. Social me…

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…

Why does it have to be either or? By your logic, we can bring back Kiwifarms, 8chan, and Stormfront. They are privately owned and have the right NOT "to enforce behavioral standards," but I think you're being disingenuous.

As someone who opposes free speech, would you be ok with Facebook allowing you to mute speech you do not like? The argument against "free speech absolutism" has more to do with one person wanting to exert power to silence another, and they are depending on social media to do that.

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

#947

Post by Overtonwindow »

croes wrote: post #436
nomdep wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a private place has 50 million users it clears that has become a “public place”. Think as if the subway was privately owned

"In 2018, a Nielsen Scarborough survey found that over 37.8 million Americans visited a Starbucks (Statista, 2021) within the last 30 days." So Starbucks is now a public place? I don't think so.

You might want to read up on Starbucks "Third Place" policy.. They actually DO want to be a public place.

"In the mid 90s Starbucks incorporated this philosophy into its retail design and business strategy: “We want our stores to be the third place' "

https://www.mjvinnovation.com/blog/third-place-and-the-starb...

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

#948

Post by galaxyLogic »

philjohn wrote: post #868
starik36 wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That company is a de-facto monopoly on political discourse in the world. It should be treated as such.

It really isn't - far more political discourse occurs on Twitter.

Or Truth Social. The truth is out there

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

#949

Post by galaxyLogic »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #907
galaxyLogic wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are we acting as if the 2000s never happened? There was no large-scale censorship (what is now disguised as 'moderation') and the communities flourished independently. Turns out, people like to choose what they want to see. These days, anything and everything that is slightly uncomfortable to groups is labeled as 'hate-speech'. If nobody can define what 'hate speech' really is and if the definition changes person…

> If nobody can define what 'hate speech' really is and if the definition changes person to person, then you're arguing for the wrong reasons ...

Hate-speech is like pornography. You know it when you see it. Of course one man's "pornography" can be another man's "erotica". But social media companies have the right to decide what they think is pornography vs. what is "erotica", and what they then share or not with all their customers.

Why are we not complaining that Facebook muzzles the free speech of people who want to spread pornography online?

Hate-speech is similar in concept to pornography but far more dangerous. It directly increases the risk of violence.

Should social-media companies be forbidden from blocking pornography on their site?

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

#950

Post by galaxyLogic »

exodust wrote: post #845
galaxyLogic wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No. Hate-speech is illegal

Is hate-speech illegal in USA? What statutes are you thinking of? I thought hate-speech was mostly allowed to exist as "free speech".

The question however is should social media companies not have the right to determine what THEY think is hate-speech, and thus not share it?

If hate-speech is vaguely defined then somebody has to make the decision as to what is or is not it, and whether to spread it online or not. Who better to make that decision than the companies whose business it affects, whether they share hate-speech or don't?

Post reply on HN