4 ms·

Providing a service to fit the definition of a unit of society is not the same as forcing endorsement of a particular point of view, and even so, there is no la

Providing a service to fit the definition of a unit of society is not the same as forcing endorsement of a particular point of view, and even so, there is no law requiring social media from offering fair POVs. You're arguing for a fairness doctrine - e.g. Fox News should be forced to show the other side an equal amount of time.

ttt0 6y ago
That's a really weird way of looking at this. HN is not endorsing my point of view by letting me publish comments here. Isn't that what the Section 230 is all about, by the way? I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. It does, which involves removing potentially harmful posts. Is this censorship to you? Now regardless of 230, if the government says "twitter, you can not moderate." That is a violation of Twitter's freedom of speech. It can moderate content however it pleases as of now. > I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media. The reason there is no law is because it's unconstitutional. The government can't force speech on platforms, even if said platforms are not responsible for its content.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. Sure it doesn't, I brought 230 up because you've equated the ability to post content with endorsement of that content. And again, I'm not sure where do you got this "censoring you is actually my freedom of speech" thing from. I already posted a wikipedia article proving that in fact yes, you can legally "force speech". I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the law, but it seems to me that we have all those politicians wasting time on nonsensical stuff like trying to ban E2E encryption, so why shouldn't they for once do something useful and ensure that corporations cannot abuse their powers?

ttt0 6y ago

That's a really weird way of looking at this. HN is not endorsing my point of view by letting me publish comments here. Isn't that what the Section 230 is all about, by the way? I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. It does, which involves removing potentially harmful posts. Is this censorship to you? Now regardless of 230, if the government says "twitter, you can not moderate." That is a violation of Twitter's freedom of speech. It can moderate content however it pleases as of now. > I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media. The reason there is no law is because it's unconstitutional. The government can't force speech on platforms, even if said platforms are not responsible for its content.
- ttt0 6y ago
  > Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. Sure it doesn't, I brought 230 up because you've equated the ability to post content with endorsement of that content. And again, I'm not sure where do you got this "censoring you is actually my freedom of speech" thing from. I already posted a wikipedia article proving that in fact yes, you can legally "force speech". I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the law, but it seems to me that we have all those politicians wasting time on nonsensical stuff like trying to ban E2E encryption, so why shouldn't they for once do something useful and ensure that corporations cannot abuse their powers?