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

91–100 of 598 posts

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

#91

Post by danaris »

bell-cot wrote: post #85

IANAL, and have not read Florida's law, but it sounds ripe for abuse by trolls: 1 - Become a political candidate (even if a write-in for some bottom-end office in a tiny municipality) 2 - Register with social networks as a Florida-protected candidate 3 - Spend all your time spewing hate at people you don't like. Maybe automate that, to get both far more spewing and far more free time.

...and this is where the difference between law and code kicks in, as the social networks ban you, and when you sue under this law, the courts say, "but everyone knows they only meant real political candidates; you know, from one of the two parties that can actually win elections".

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

#92

Post by danaris »

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.

Your conclusion ("this is a terrible precedent") is correct, but the way you get there makes no sense.

The government makes laws about how private companies and citizens can act all the time without funding them. You think the government has to fund every auto maker in order to impose emissions standards on them? Or that every company making communications equipment/chips is funded by the government, so that they can impose regulations on what spectrum they can use?

This is a terrible precedent because there is no sane, logical way to define social networks as common carriers, and because Section 230 was specifically written to allow and encourage content moderation.

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

#93

Post by yamtaddle »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #83
yamtaddle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A corporation is a creation of government. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate them any way they think best? Which isn't necessarily to say this is a good idea, but... of course government should be able to tell companies how to operate.

Except in ways that are constitutionally prohibited, right?

Yeah, sure.

For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear that changes much, though.

[EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically—well, again, corporations are a creation of of government, so it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached the government cares to create (so far as what's ethical, if not what's a good idea), and if the folks running corporations don't like it, they can always... stop running corporations. No one's forcing them to run a corporation, and they can all go do whatever they like with full protection of the US Constitution and all that jazz, if they use their own personal resources and don't hide behind corporate liability shields.

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

#94

Post by bell-cot »

danaris wrote: post #91
bell-cot wrote: post #85

IANAL, and have not read Florida's law, but it sounds ripe for abuse by trolls: 1 - Become a political candidate (even if a write-in for some bottom-end office in a tiny municipality) 2 - Register with social networks as a Florida-protected candidate 3 - Spend all your time spewing hate at people you don't like. Maybe automate that, to get both far more spewing and far more free time.

...and this is where the difference between law and code kicks in, as the social networks ban you, and when you sue under this law, the courts say, "but everyone knows they only meant real political candidates; you know, from one of the two parties that can actually win elections".

You might want to look into how easy it can be to become a real "major party" candidate, for a minor office, in a small municipality. Especially if "your" major party is the "no hope" party in a dyed-in-wool municipality, or you're just a primary candidate. Or the party understands that you'll mostly be spewing hate at people they hate.

And if the social networks are forced to follow this Florida law, and Mr. A. Troll De Vile was spewing hate at the politicians behind the law...might some social networks feel "deepest frustration" that they were, alas, legally barred from banning Mr. De Vile?

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

#95

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

yamtaddle wrote: post #93
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in ways that are constitutionally prohibited, right?

Yeah, sure. For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear that changes much, though. [EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically—well, again, corporations are a creation of of government, so it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached the government cares to create (so far as what's ethical, if not what's a good idea ), and if the folks running corporations don't like it, they can alway…

Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers (whether persons natural or juridical) from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates?

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

#96

Post by brk »

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.

But at the same time, politicians using social media to continuously publish blatant lies is also not a mechanism for stable government. In the past, this was regulated to a large degree by traditional media outlets being a filter of sorts and not just printing any random direct statement made by a politician.

I think there is a balance between "social media must not interfere with blatantly false statements from politicians" and "social media can ban their political detractors without consequence". The ideal reality would be the public actually holding politicians responsible for being deceptive or treasonous, but that does not appear to be on the horizon either.

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

#97

Post by yamtaddle »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #95
yamtaddle wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sure. For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear that changes much, though. [EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically—well, again, corporations are a creation of of government, so it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached the government cares to create (so far as what's ethical, if not what's a good idea ), and if the folks running corporations don't like it, they can alway…

Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers (whether persons natural or juridical) from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates?

> Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates?

Nah, but I also reckon there's a reason the press is mentioned specifically in that amendment.

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

#98

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

yamtaddle wrote: post #97
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers (whether persons natural or juridical) from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates?

> Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates? Nah, but I also reckon there's a reason the press is mentioned specifically in that amendment.

What about a law prohibiting unions from doing so?

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

#99

Post by protomyth »

triceratops wrote: post #71
protomyth wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's an open admission that none of these laws are about principles or "freedom of speech". They're openly political, and they should be upfront about that.

Every law is politically motivated. "Freedom of Speech" is a politically motivated.

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

#100

Post by blast »

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."

I agree with you about that, but I also (might) agree with them about this.

Not that you said otherwise, but... I think we should go back to a transactional mix-and-match style of politics, with different coalitions per issue, instead of the "agree with your friend tribe and disagree with your enemy tribe about everything" style that we seem to be locked into these days. There shouldn't be any shame in being part of the same coalition on one issue with people who are reprehensible on other issues. Agreeing with the Florida government about some point of social media regulation doesn't imply I agree with them about anything else.

Post reply on HN