Comment by fluidcruft | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fluidcruft | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've mentioned this before, but the speech of Twitter users isn't Twitter's speech. So it seems laughable for them to claim this affects their speech whatsoever. Add to that the fact that Twitter (and all social media) are absolutely not interested in making their user's speech their own and being responsible for it.

There's not even any compelled speech argument that Twitter is being forced to speak about something it does not want to. Twitter is a corporation, not a person. It has no right to exist and can have its business license revoked.

Now, if Twitter does want to make each Twitter user's speech its own speech, then maybe Twitter might have grounds to make a 1A stand. But as is Twitter and all social media absolutely do not want to be held responsible for what they publish so, frankly, they can pound sand.

It would be different if Twitter were considered similar to a newspaper where Twitter acted as editor and could be held accountable for what they publish. But they will fight that tooth and nail.

> So it seems laughable for them to claim this affects their speech whatsoever.

AFAICS the proposal doesn't require them to moderate Twitter users in any way; it requires Twitter to state publicly and clearly what their moderation policies are. But arguably stating its moderation policies is "compelled speech".

Thing is, there's plenty of compelled speech going on, including food labelling laws. There's precedent (although I understand US law doesn't have "precedent" as such, just appeals to successive senior courts).

Yeah, exactly. There's no 1A territory here. The idea that a commercial business cannot be regulated and compelled by a State to produce a mere reporting of its relevant business activities is completely bonkers.

It would be even more bonkers if government could regulate without any restrictions.

Can California demand that a restaurant provides daily report on how often each employee washes their hands and fine them $15k per day if they don't or provide incorrect information?

Per your simplistic argument it would be bonkers if California could create such law. It's a mere reporting of its relevant business activity.

To me it would be bonkers if California could create such onerous regulation.

In law analogies only get you so far. I'm pretty sure that things like food labeling were challenged in courts and were found to not violate 1st amendment but the onerous requirements California tries to impose here are not even close to use them as some kind of precedent.

There are always consequences to regulations and practical restrictions seen at the ballot box. If the reporting is justifiable and required of all restaurants, then... so be it? If the People are unconvinced that it's necessary or they don't like it and think the government is out of touch, we throw the bums out. The very real risk of losing of power is what keeps them from passing the sorts of "ridiculous" regulations you are proposing.

I don't see why California should not be able to pass such a law? It'd be a really dumb law but the constitution does not try to forbid bad overly onerous laws as long as they aren't specifically targeted at one person.

The sine qua non of corporations is compelled speech. A corporation can't exist without articles of incorporation / corporate charter and it needs written policies for basically everything it does to keep the corporate veil intact.

The tricky thing here is whether Twitter is required to have explicit and clear moderation policies that actually determine the decisions they are likely to take or whether their (constitutionally protected!) right to moderation includes the right to moderate absolutely arbitrarily, and if compelled to publish their policies, then just truthfully state that each decision might be solely determined by the mood of whoever decides that day?

I haven't looked at this in a bit, but I thought that companies are exempt from their users' speech only if they don't make editorial decisions (and Twitter does, like reddit or HN or Slashdot). Am I mistaken?

Companies are allowed to moderate their platforms under Section 230.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...

Thank you!

That is something oft-repeated in conservative circles without a shred of basis in law. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) of the CDA does the exact opposite. It was written to explicitly _grant_ immunity when companies moderate in good faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

OK, thank you for the correction! I'll read it and learn more.

EDIT: I replied to this before refreshing and seeing sibling replies. So I guess all I have to add is another link.

On the contrary, Section 230 is what allows platforms to make some editorial decisions without thereby assuming liability for all user-generated content.

Before 230, what you said was true.

I like this explanation: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

It's a good explanation, and more readable than the Wikipedia! Thanks for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com