Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 598 posts

Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

#11

Post by ejb999 »

ProAm wrote: post #3

This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.

>>These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them

You are kidding right? You don't think the government already controls almost everything about how companies can operate?

Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

#12

Post by brk »

This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation.

Politicians really should not have special exemptions or privileges when it comes to free speech issues. Eg: they have exceptions to use robo-calls, text spam, etc.

Realistically, we probably need to define when an organization is a media influencer vs. a niche communications platform. I do think Facebook/Twitter/Etc. need to be held to a different level of accountability on things like this than say Tomshardware, or HN.

Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

#13

Post by nonethewiser »

Ekaros wrote: post #6

Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.

They are obviously publishers at this point.

Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

#15

Post by Mattasher »

At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the CDC), ban certain people in response to political pressures, and hand over user's private data without a warrant.

That doesn't mean regulating them like common carries is good or workable, but we need to start by recognizing that there are first amendment claims on both sides now.

Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

#16

Post by [deleted] »

ProAm wrote: post #3

This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.

[deleted]

Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

#17

Post by layer8 »

Ekaros wrote: post #6

Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.

In the latter case, they might turn into an equivalent of Kiwi Farms. It would certainly be interesting.

Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

#18

Post by pessimizer »

nonethewiser wrote: post #13
Ekaros wrote: post #6

Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.

They are obviously publishers at this point.

Not sure what you mean. Publishers are held responsible for bad content, and they are not. So we're deciding whether we want to make them publishers, make them common carriers, or keep the status quo.

-----

edit: my guess as to what they are now is online services who republish submitted third-party content or however section 230 defines them.

-----

edit2: An interactive computer service that retransmits material provided by an information content provider.

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

So they are explicitly and definitively not publishers.

Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

#19

Post by nonethewiser »

brk wrote: post #12

This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation. Politicians really should not have special exemptions or privileges when it comes to free speech issues. Eg: they have exceptions to use robo-calls, text spam, etc. Realistically, we probably need to define when an organization is a media influencer vs. a niche communications platform. I do think Facebook/Twitter/Etc. need to be held…

The law applies to social media sights with > 100,000 monthly active users.
Post reply on HN