6 ms·

The ruling is only in regards to very large websites with millions of MAU. In my opinion, applying laws regarding speech differently for such sites which act as

by gfodor 4y ago

The ruling is only in regards to very large websites with millions of MAU. In my opinion, applying laws regarding speech differently for such sites which act as 'public squares' is an important thing we, as a society, need to wrangle with. I am not sure what the answer is, but suggesting that this prevents all websites from moderation is a blatant lie. The entire point is audience size matters in how much we must regulate the nature of permissible censorship or other actions which could stifle the marketplace of ideas.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> sites which act as 'public squares' I hear this phrase a lot. What is a public square? Well, my living room isn't a public square. Nor is my email inbox; nor is the comment section on my blog. Actually, there are no comments on my blog, because I don't have a blog. But how many daily comments would I have to get to become a public square? I don't think there's any reasonable case to be made that a private web-service is in any sense a "public square". Faceache and Twat are private squares - like a courtyard in a gated community. If people wanted a real public square, they should have done more to prevent the sidelining of Usenet, and they should boycott the holding of "public" discussions in private places like gated communities. Incidentally, you can't usually say anything you want in a public square; several people have been arrested and cuffed in this country, for things like: - Shouting "Who elected him" on the proclamation of Charles The Turd in Edinburgh - Holding up a blank piece of paper(!) at a similar proclamation in London Basically, I can say all kinds of things here on HN that would get me arrested if I said them downtown (including if I were to pick an argument with the evangelical god-squad crews that set up in the town square with a public address system). I've lived in a few places in the USA, and in none of those places would I have felt safe expressing my opinions in the local "public square". I'd either be arrested by the cops, or beaten to a pulp by heavies, with the cops watching. The town square isn't the free-speech paradise that some people seem to claim, when they are discussing internet regulation.
- gfodor 4y ago
  You’re getting hung up on the analogy. Whatever things like Twitter and Facebook are, they seem to be distinctly new phenomena that have a critical role to play in upholding the principles of freedom of speech that underpins things like liberal democracy, given their scale and the network effects of that scale. It’s important to recognize this for what it is and incorporate it into society intentionally to maximize the net benefits to humanity. The current approach where the marketplace of ideas seems to be tightening given the emergent behavior of these companies (and the public pressure to do so) implies to me we need a better regulatory regime or technology stack if we want to ensure liberalism continues to prosper.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Gosh, you have squeezed in so much stuff which I disagree with, I can't answer that properly. Suffice to say that this glorious new world mediated by the benign TwitFace excludes some people from the town square, without banning them. For example, I am excluded, because I choose not to use them, because I don't trust them. I never have, and I've never had an account with either. They're also exclusive, because they depend on "the user" having access to a network and a device, and the ability to use the device, and express themselves. [Edit] Oh, and of course there's the ToS. There's an awful lot of privilege in there.
    - gfodor 4y ago
      It doesn’t matter who doesn’t have access or who chooses not to join. The entire point is they now affect you (and everyone alive, now or in the future) regardless - because of their scale and network.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        I'm reminded of MySpace.
        gfodor 4y ago
        Well, you have a bad mental model then. It explains your position but you should try to update it.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Given that this is an article about Texas, you seem to be using a quite expansive definition of "this country" if it includes London and Edinburgh.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    I was responding to remarks about public squares on the internet, not about "this country". And as I understand it, the 5th Circuit is a federal appeal court, that happens to be located in Texas. Its rulings and precedents affect the whole of the USA, and potentially the world. This isn't some parochial ruling about website hosts domiciled in East Texas.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > But how many daily comments would I have to get to become a public square? How many grains of sand would you need to have a heap? > If people wanted a real public square, they should have done more to prevent the sidelining of Usenet, and they should boycott the holding of "public" discussions in private places like gated communities. By this logic, we should repeal all of our product safety laws, and just let people boycott products that end up killing their users a lot.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > How many grains of sand would you need to have a heap? My point exactly. If you want to say that a private service becomes a "town square" when its size exceeds some number of grains of sand, then you have to say what that number is, and justify it. That's not possible; so probably the idea that there should be a threshold is wrong. Either every private service is a common carrier; or none is.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > That's not possible; so probably the idea that there should be a threshold is wrong. Either every private service is a common carrier; or none is. The whole point of the sorites paradox is that this isn't the case. It is possible to make a distinction between two different classes of things even if the boundary can't be specified with infinite precision.
      - gfodor 4y ago
        Yep, you can choose thresholds based upon if you care more about Type I or II error. In this case, it should be easy to argue we should be setting the bar very high to be considered a public square. But it definitely should include Twitter and Facebook.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        It's not a question of precision; nobody cares whether it's 10M commenters, or 10 million and one. It's that without a clear, agreed rule, then everyone can draw the line wherever they like. If it's drawn by legislators or judges, there'll always be lots of people who think it should be drawn elsewhere. No rule based on counting grains of sand is ever going to gain consensus.
- 5560675260 4y ago
  > Incidentally, you can't usually say anything you want in a public square; several people have been arrested and cuffed in this country, for things like: Not a great example. Doesn't look like something that should be ever accepted in a free society.

by gfodor 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

> sites which act as 'public squares' I hear this phrase a lot. What is a public square? Well, my living room isn't a public square. Nor is my email inbox; nor is the comment section on my blog. Actually, there are no comments on my blog, because I don't have a blog. But how many daily comments would I have to get to become a public square? I don't think there's any reasonable case to be made that a private web-service is in any sense a "public square". Faceache and Twat are private squares - like a courtyard in a gated community. If people wanted a real public square, they should have done more to prevent the sidelining of Usenet, and they should boycott the holding of "public" discussions in private places like gated communities. Incidentally, you can't usually say anything you want in a public square; several people have been arrested and cuffed in this country, for things like: - Shouting "Who elected him" on the proclamation of Charles The Turd in Edinburgh - Holding up a blank piece of paper(!) at a similar proclamation in London Basically, I can say all kinds of things here on HN that would get me arrested if I said them downtown (including if I were to pick an argument with the evangelical god-squad crews that set up in the town square with a public address system). I've lived in a few places in the USA, and in none of those places would I have felt safe expressing my opinions in the local "public square". I'd either be arrested by the cops, or beaten to a pulp by heavies, with the cops watching. The town square isn't the free-speech paradise that some people seem to claim, when they are discussing internet regulation.

gfodor 4y ago
You’re getting hung up on the analogy. Whatever things like Twitter and Facebook are, they seem to be distinctly new phenomena that have a critical role to play in upholding the principles of freedom of speech that underpins things like liberal democracy, given their scale and the network effects of that scale. It’s important to recognize this for what it is and incorporate it into society intentionally to maximize the net benefits to humanity. The current approach where the marketplace of ideas seems to be tightening given the emergent behavior of these companies (and the public pressure to do so) implies to me we need a better regulatory regime or technology stack if we want to ensure liberalism continues to prosper.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Gosh, you have squeezed in so much stuff which I disagree with, I can't answer that properly. Suffice to say that this glorious new world mediated by the benign TwitFace excludes some people from the town square, without banning them. For example, I am excluded, because I choose not to use them, because I don't trust them. I never have, and I've never had an account with either. They're also exclusive, because they depend on "the user" having access to a network and a device, and the ability to use the device, and express themselves. [Edit] Oh, and of course there's the ToS. There's an awful lot of privilege in there.
  - gfodor 4y ago
    It doesn’t matter who doesn’t have access or who chooses not to join. The entire point is they now affect you (and everyone alive, now or in the future) regardless - because of their scale and network.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      I'm reminded of MySpace.
      - gfodor 4y ago
        Well, you have a bad mental model then. It explains your position but you should try to update it.
whimsicalism 4y ago
Given that this is an article about Texas, you seem to be using a quite expansive definition of "this country" if it includes London and Edinburgh.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  I was responding to remarks about public squares on the internet, not about "this country". And as I understand it, the 5th Circuit is a federal appeal court, that happens to be located in Texas. Its rulings and precedents affect the whole of the USA, and potentially the world. This isn't some parochial ruling about website hosts domiciled in East Texas.
josephcsible 4y ago
> But how many daily comments would I have to get to become a public square? How many grains of sand would you need to have a heap? > If people wanted a real public square, they should have done more to prevent the sidelining of Usenet, and they should boycott the holding of "public" discussions in private places like gated communities. By this logic, we should repeal all of our product safety laws, and just let people boycott products that end up killing their users a lot.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > How many grains of sand would you need to have a heap? My point exactly. If you want to say that a private service becomes a "town square" when its size exceeds some number of grains of sand, then you have to say what that number is, and justify it. That's not possible; so probably the idea that there should be a threshold is wrong. Either every private service is a common carrier; or none is.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > That's not possible; so probably the idea that there should be a threshold is wrong. Either every private service is a common carrier; or none is. The whole point of the sorites paradox is that this isn't the case. It is possible to make a distinction between two different classes of things even if the boundary can't be specified with infinite precision.
    - gfodor 4y ago
      Yep, you can choose thresholds based upon if you care more about Type I or II error. In this case, it should be easy to argue we should be setting the bar very high to be considered a public square. But it definitely should include Twitter and Facebook.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      It's not a question of precision; nobody cares whether it's 10M commenters, or 10 million and one. It's that without a clear, agreed rule, then everyone can draw the line wherever they like. If it's drawn by legislators or judges, there'll always be lots of people who think it should be drawn elsewhere. No rule based on counting grains of sand is ever going to gain consensus.
5560675260 4y ago
> Incidentally, you can't usually say anything you want in a public square; several people have been arrested and cuffed in this country, for things like: Not a great example. Doesn't look like something that should be ever accepted in a free society.