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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by kybernetyk »

ddevault wrote: post #895
kybernetyk wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what about some dangerous stuff like radicalisation which then will produce terrorists or extremist? Is this the millennial version of boomers' "3d shooter games create school shooters"? "Tweets with bad words create terrorists"? I thought this BS (both versions) has been disproved countless times. But here we are and the nu-conservatives (who call themselves liberals) are at it again.

Games let you pretend to do a terrorist attack. Twitter lets you plan to do one.

yeah, so does pen and paper. I guess those should be banned, too?

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

#962

Post by joe_the_user »

xwowsersx wrote: post #781
catiopatio wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a legitimate position in some circumstances. If someone doesn't want to discuss a topic, all they have to do is not discuss the topic. Expressing such a position isn't a legitimate contribution to public discourse; it's a tactic that inhibits the process of building mutual understanding through discourse.

Exactly. That's my point. It is true that sometimes an idea is too stupid to even deserve a reply. But simply stating here that 'this is so dumb, I'm not going to respond to it' doesn't contribute anything nor is it in line with the spirit of HN, per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The problem with what you're advocating every idea or comment either have a reasonably in-depth response or none at all. That reduces the poster's toolbox and lets the naive observer think the fundamentally unsupportable ideas might not be being noticed.

A reply that says "this is obviously wrong" may seem contentless but it's just "minimal content". You should be able to respond like this for the same reason you should be able to down vote things without comment. It's like a professor giving comment on an exam. Some questions they will just mark wrong, some they might write "makes no sense" to get the person thinking or clarifying and others they'd go into detail with.

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

#963

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

legacynl wrote: post #888
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. People keep ginning up false analogies to justify censorship. If you create a service deliberately designed so that anyone can sign up and start posting things without so much as an employee approving their registration, then you've deliberately created what amounts to a public square. To then selectively censor people on such a platform is tantamount to a bait & switch. You promised people a public square,…

> If you create a service deliberately designed so that anyone can sign up and start posting things without so much as an employee approving their registration, then you've deliberately created what amounts to a public square. So if I host an open-mic night in my comedy-club, i lose the right to reject applicants?

False analogy. Twitter et al deliberately encourage and sometimes try to force you to create accounts and join their platform. Instagram won't even let you look at stuff without creating an account and logging in.

Is your hypothetical comedy club deliberately and indiscriminately trying to drive people into coming in to increase the number of people inside it? And bragging about how many people are in there?

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

#964

Post by ineptech »

catiopatio wrote: post #586
ineptech wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced.

What would you call it?

I think the usual term for being asked to leave a place due to your behavior is "eighty-sixed".

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

#965

Post by tmaly »

inetknght wrote: post #612
patmcc wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me?

> So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me? For some definitions of low cost-of-living, sure. In this law specifically: Sec. 120.002. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter applies only to a user who: (1) resides in this state; (2) does business in this state; or (3) shares or receives content on a social media platform in this state. There are, of cour…

Would using a VPN termination in the state constitute sharing or receiving content on a social media platform in the state?

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

#966

Post by akerl_ »

ddevault wrote: post #895
kybernetyk wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what about some dangerous stuff like radicalisation which then will produce terrorists or extremist? Is this the millennial version of boomers' "3d shooter games create school shooters"? "Tweets with bad words create terrorists"? I thought this BS (both versions) has been disproved countless times. But here we are and the nu-conservatives (who call themselves liberals) are at it again.

Games let you pretend to do a terrorist attack. Twitter lets you plan to do one.

I feel like I’m not grokking the point you’re trying to make. Twitter can be used to plan crimes. So can iMessage and Tor and gnupg and WhatsApp and IRC.

Can you clarify what you’re proposing is the right path forward?

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

#967

Post by BlueTemplar »

themitigating wrote: post #383
dpifke wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need for a government-sponsored forum, when smaller forums are explicitly exempted from the Texas law. The law at issue still allows forums with 49,999,999 or fewer users to discriminate based on political viewpoint. It only says sites larger than that need to allow all political viewpoints (but only if they allow any political viewpoints, and only if they have users in Texas). Legal: Message board with 49 million…

Why the cutoff? Is it because all the companies it would apply to agents conservative, like Truth Social?

It would indeed seem so, since the suggested cutoff of 25M/month that would supposedly include Gab and Parler was rejected.

You would think that the judges would realize that it's in their best interest if they want this to stick to throw their political opponents a bone, but... nope ?

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

#968

Post by BlueTemplar »

solarmist wrote: post #253
anotherOneSound wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don’t think the crux of the issue is determining how to legislate the priv/publ dichotomy, but rather how can we enable as many people as desire an ability to establish their own chalkboard. legislation as its proceeding is serving to entrench big tech platforms, its disabling the common person from having their own chalkboard with its own moderation preferences. let the market decide. this, in my opinion, is not t…

That may be a better ideal solution, but that’s not the world we live in. I have no interest in establishing my own chalk board, nor do most people.

This would be very easy for ISPs to set up on their leased routers. In fact until recently most people would have their email come from their ISP ! Some would also have a personal website space - mine is somehow still up 20 years later ! (At the time, routers wouldn't be common, especially not full-blown Linux computers, so it was all on ISP's servers.)

The only tricky part (which is perhaps even worse already with the "cloud"), is that some legislation is needed to simplify transfers (and not just the file ones) from one ISP to another, like we already have with phone numbers.

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

#969

Post by BlueTemplar »

gnaritas99 wrote: post #307
jacobolus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The appropriate description for the 5th circuit is “corrupt, incoherent activism”.

All court activism is corruption; their job is not to make law or have political opinions of any sort, they should be slaves to the text of the law, not bending it to their will.

What about the judiciary being canonically one of the 3 powers of the state, by design split in a democracy ?

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

#970

Post by ccrush »

ChoGGi wrote: post #187

https://archive.ph/t6LtL

I had to scroll way too far for this. You're a hero we don't deserve, but desperately need. One of the most infuriating things about the discussions here is the seemingly never ending supply of people with a passionate opinion on the subject of an article they didn't read because of a pay wall. It's likely due to how certain browsers / clients had the ability to hit the free trial by opening each link as a new session, and how that's not working like it used to, so people take what they can get. Thanks for archiving so people can access the original page and not overload the site because some sites sneak edit their content while others can't handle the amount of traffic HN generates. You're doing work in the name of goodness.
Post reply on HN