Hacker News Reader

Comment by tick_tock_tick | Hacker News Reader

I made this comment in another thread but I think we are few year from it being forced by the Supreme Court as it has ruled very close to this in the past.

> ... noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Twitter is going to be forced to unban most if not all people if they want to be a general open to the public social network.

View on HN

This actually isn't the case as long as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exists [1].

The section has two parts, the first of which protects the platform (Twitter, Google Play Store, FB, etc) from prosecution for user-generated content on the platform.

The second part, more relevant here, ensures the right of the platform to moderate it's users anyway it sees fit. If r/conservative can ban anyone for saying anything on the subreddit, or Parler can ban you for dropping leftist talking points, the Play Store can ban your app for enabling domestic terrorism.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

If the Supreme Court chooses to go down the route I have described the content of section 230 has no bearing on the discussion as ruling on this matter as a First Amendment issue would invalidate the needed parts of the Communications Decency Act.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25728005

For the sake of our freedoms let’s hope Twitters right to decide who gets to use their property and distribution remains. Otherwise it’s a tragedy of the commons as every platform devolves into the lowest common denominator.

There are more recent cases that go the other way. I don’t think that ruling is as expansive as you think it is.

I hope everyone else walks away before then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com