Comment by Kon-Peki | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kon-Peki | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Note that the issue of Section 230 does not come up even once in this history lesson.

To be perfectly pedantic, the history lesson ends in 1991 and the CDA was passed in 1996.

Also, I am not sure that this author really understands where things stand anymore. He calls the 3rd circuit TikTok ruling "batshit insane" and "deliberately ignores precedent". Well, it is entirely possible (likely even?) that it will get overruled. But that ruling is based on a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year (Moody vs. NetChoice). Throw your precedence out the window, the Supreme Court just changed things (or maybe we will find out that they didn't really mean it like that).

The First Amendment protects you from the consequences of your own speech (with something like 17 categories of exceptions).

Section 230 protects you from the consequences of publishing someone else's speech.

Where we are right now is deciding if the algorithm is pumping out your speech or it is pumping out someone else's speech. And the 3rd circuit TikTok ruling spends paragraphs discussing this. You can read it for yourself and decide if it makes sense.

"Section 230 protects you from the consequences of publishing someone else's speech."

Right.

"Where we are right now is deciding if the algorithm is pumping out your speech or it is pumping out someone else's speech."

????????????????????????????? Read what you wrote. It's the user who created it.

I strongly suggest reading the actual 3rd circuit TikTok ruling as well as the actual Moody vs NetChoice Supreme Court ruling, both from the year 2024.

Things have changed. Hold on to your previous belief at your own peril.

> The First Amendment protects you from the consequences of your own speech

It does no such thing. It protects your right to speak, but does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.

Under that standard North Korea has free speech.

Bingo. If you threaten, or promote harm/hate speech, you're not suddenly immune from the consequences of that. It's that the platform is (generally) immune from those same consequences.

It’s not just that. If I say something that people find derogatory, and they do not want to associate with me because of that, that’s THEIR first amendment right.

There can always be social consequences for speech that is legal under the first amendment.

Yes, this is really what I meant. The First Amendment does protect you from government retaliation for critical speech. It does not prevent you from becoming a pariah in your community or more widely for what you say. Just look at any celebrity who lost multi-million dollar sponsorship contracts over a tweet.

Free Speech https://xkcd.com/1357/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com