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

61–70 of 598 posts

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

#61

Post by marcosdumay »

pessimizer wrote: post #28
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…

> This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation. Because political censorship is the worst censorship (you might argue that all censorship is political.) It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship. If the powerful are censoring the political process, there are no means to make any of the powerful less powerful. It becomes self-perpetuating.

Political speech is not "speech made by politicians".

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

#62

Post by triceratops »

pessimizer wrote: post #37
cjensen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress passed a law to specifically ensure they are websites are not responsible for the speech they reproduce. This law is good because it encourages content moderation because there are never consequences for the moderation decisions.

> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?

> do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?

Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?

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

#63

Post by krapp »

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.

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

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

#64

Post by triceratops »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #54
ProAm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are given massive subsidies from the government to do so. Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do.

> Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do Social network and communications have nothing to do with each-other? are you reading what you are writing? How is Facebook messenger call different from a phonecall of the 21st century?

I only have one or 2 choices of phone carriers with a high cost to switch. I have a multitude of alternatives to FB Messenger (which I don't even use) with very low cost to switch.

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

#65

Post by sixstringtheory »

eddof13 wrote: post #40
pfisch wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to post on 4chan, go post on 4chan. Don't turn the rest of the internet into 4chan so you can force gross ideas and content onto everyone else.

we should put speed limiters on cars so they can't go faster than 5 mph and endanger someone else

Hyperbole aside, I've ridden in supercars that are equipped with speed limiters in order to be able to drive on public roads legally in the US.

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

#66

Post by b0sk »

eddof13 wrote: post #33
ceejayoz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this be huge for you?

it aligns with my values on free speech and I think social media platforms should be common carriers and be forced to allow all free speech (aside from fire in a crowded theater)

And getting banned because you repeatedly say that the election is fraud and urge your supporters to storm the capitol (and getting one such person killed) isn't the equivalent of fire in a crowded theater?

Moderation is hard. They get it right 99% of the time.

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

#67

Post by protomyth »

triceratops wrote: post #50
protomyth wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private companies are regulated all the time. Look up the rules for any utility or communications company. They banned politicians, so that's going to get laws passed.

So why aren't ISPs regulated like common carriers?

Before 2018 they were, and now they are listed as Title I information services. There is a bit of a court fight over the ability of state regulators to impose rules. I would imagine that they could be moved back if they cause trouble for politicians.

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

#68

Post by b0sk »

eddof13 wrote: post #40
pfisch wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to post on 4chan, go post on 4chan. Don't turn the rest of the internet into 4chan so you can force gross ideas and content onto everyone else.

we should put speed limiters on cars so they can't go faster than 5 mph and endanger someone else

Now that we've come to analogies, think that they are traffic lights.

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

#69

Post by case0x00 »

klyrs wrote: post #53

Meanwhile, Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions. This is not about a principled approach to free speech. It's about protecting the right to enforce religious-inspired bigotry, tearing down the separation of church and state even as that bigotry becomes "unpopular."

To what are you referring?

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

#70

Post by pessimizer »

triceratops wrote: post #62
pessimizer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?

> do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good? Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?

I don't believe in natural property rights, because I don't know how to find them in nature. Property rights as assigned by law don't have to be believed in, just observed, because they are enforced.

"Natural extensions" of property rights are religious beliefs. I believe they should be protected, but not indulged.

Post reply on HN