News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech. Parent comment

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by catiopatio on Saturday September 17, 2022 @06:41PM (#32882314)
The law only disallows viewpoint-based censorship.

Twitter remains free to write and enforce an acceptable-use policy that disallows "bot-like" behaviors, as long as the policy and enforcement is viewpoint-neutral.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by FilterSweep on Saturday September 17, 2022 @09:20PM (#32883435)
but what if the _flying spaghetti monster cult_ were disproportionate users of bots for their viewpoints?

how does twitter disprove bias?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by catiopatio on Saturday September 17, 2022 @10:04PM (#32883668)
Twitter has no obligation under this law to disprove accusations of bias that arise due to disparate outcomes.

Furthermore, such a requirement would backfire spectacularly on the conservative right; consider all the other areas where disparity of outcome arises today.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by FilterSweep on Sunday September 18, 2022 @10:12AM (#32887719)
perhaps - or perhaps that ship has already sailed[0]

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by giaour on Wednesday September 28, 2022 @08:51AM (#33007291)
What you're describing is possible would be a pretty big shift for Twitter and would make it simultaneously less pleasant and less useful. Under the policy you propose that would comply with the new Texas law, a bot that automatically posts new state regulations as they come into effect would be banned, but human Nazis could freely advocate for ethnic cleansing.
[ Parent | on HN ]