Hacker News Reader

Comment by theandrewbailey | Hacker News Reader

If it can be proven that big tech is already partisan in rule enforcement, then they should not have these protections.

Why would you think that? The law (230) has no requirement that moderation be non-partisan. Or are you making an argument about what the law should be?

To prove that, you will need a rigorous definition of what partisan means covering every situation and set of events and then Scotus will need to assess the whole of a social media company to evaluate whether the standard is met. Also, you won't be allowed to chat with your family unless you can prove to the same definition that you're impartial as a group.

Or, more likely, you can do what the supreme court has done in the past with the Roth test [1], argue “you know it when you see it”, and dodge the challenge of rigorously defining the topic while still allowing for some prosecutions to occur.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

"For my friends, anything. For my enemies, the law".

Of course, that just requires people to agree whether something is "patently obscene". Now get people to agree on whether something is fair in a political situation...

So what you're saying is Donald Trump should have no right to moderate content on Truth Social but he must bear full responsibility for lies that get posted there?

And the same should apply to this forum that you obviously enjoy using free of charge?

What you and these ultra-partisans are proposing is a set of contradictory mandates that will effectively kill off everything about the internet except apps, shopping and advertising --- and even the advertising may be in jeopardy too.

If you don't have the power to take down lies[0], you can't be held responsible for them. That's what Section 230 is supposed to do.

[0] Who is deciding what is a lie and what isn't? Too often, what appears to be a lie to someone is someone else's lived experience. The internet doesn't have an oath. Social network randos aren't obligated to post the truth.

If you don't have the power to take down lies[0], you can't be held responsible for them.

LOL!

Thank you for illustrating my point. The first victims of any such mandate will be the ultra-partisans promoting this case --- they have zero tolerance for dissent.

Do you honestly think Truth Social will continue to operate without Trump having the ability to ban and remove people and posts he disagrees with? He is very definition of intolerant --- the only tolerance he has any interest in is that afforded himself.

The job for this biased court will be to craft a decision that impacts one side but not the other. I'm skeptical that this can be achieved in a fair and consistent and workable manner.

Drat! It's been proven!

https://mashable.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-conser... https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-algorithms-amplify-conservati... https://www.inputmag.com/tech/twitter-anti-conservative-bias... https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/researchers-have-alr...

I read the above links as showing that there's a mild-to-pronounced pro-conservative bias in almost all "big tech" social media.

Yes, you can find Dennis Prager or Ben Shapiro claiming anti-conservative bias, but what's their methodology? I think the above studies have a methodology, they attempted to be non-partisan. Prager and Shapiro don't even pretend to be objective.

Why?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com