Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by rainsford on Saturday September 17, 2022 @07:07PM
(#32882518)
Even if you subscribe to the viewpoint that Facebook is a "pipe" rather than the speaker, it seems hard to avoid the idea that Facebook's choice of which speech it is a pipe for constitutes free speech by Facebook. Nobody should be confused as to whether a newspaper is the author of letters to the editor, but it has a 1st amendment right to choose which letters to publish.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by catiopatio on Saturday September 17, 2022 @07:14PM
(#32882570)
If it is Facebook's speech, and this is equivalent to a newspaper, then why shouldn't we hold Facebook liable for the speech they do choose to publish — just like a newspaper?
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by incompatible on Saturday September 17, 2022 @09:29PM
(#32883484)
Has the "1st amendment right to choose which letters to publish" in a newspaper ever been tested in a court? Or could it also be challenged by the same kind of legislation, if it didn't apply only to "social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users"?
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by rayiner on Saturday September 17, 2022 @08:50PM
(#32883238)
It doesn’t seem that hard to me to say that what Facebook does with millions of messages flowing through its pipes every day is “conduct” not “speech.”
A better foundation for this seems to be property rights—it’s facebook’s pipes, and their business what they do with it.
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by inkblotuniverse on Sunday September 18, 2022 @05:46AM
(#32886002)
The water company owns their pipes, and they're not allowed to shut off my supply because of something offensive I said.