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

131–140 of 598 posts

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

#131

Post by b800h »

scarface74 wrote: post #126
b800h wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a potential argument against this. 1. Network effects mean that there's only space for one platform in a particular niche. 2. There are reports (are they reliable?) that people who are more left wing are more habitually online and post much more. If the above two are true, then left-wing social networks will naturally dominate.

There is only space for one platform, yet there are plenty of platforms for discourse. Are you really arguing that for instance Trump or Foxnews don’t have the following to start an alternate social media? As far as #2, why should tgat be an argument for the government to be involved?

Well I'm hedging my bets. If it really is true that the market in a particular area (microblogging for instance) can only be dominated by a single company, and also that left-wing users are more active, then absolutely, I'm arguing that Fox would be unable to maintain a successful rival to Twitter.

As far as #2 is concerned, well I don't know if it is an argument for the government to become involved, but if something is driving huge divisions in society which are arguably destabilising the country (again, this is arguably wrong) then should the government not intervene? I'm European by the way, so my philosophical priors might be different to those of an American.

It's not as though government doesn't regulated other human behaviours which cause damage if left unregulated. Drink driving, for example.

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

#132

Post by pwinnski »

layer8 wrote: post #43
elil17 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unclear to me that email and CDNs are the kinds of natural monopolies that need to be regulated as common carriers

Look what happened to Kiwi Farms, and what happens to people who try to host their own outgoing SMTP server.

Kiwi Farms is offline not because CloudFlare refuses to do business with them, but because everybody collectively refuses to do business with them. Otherwise they could just have gone to a competitor.

One can still find what happened to them chilling, but that doesn't make CloudFlare a "common carrier."

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

#133

Post by fzeroracer »

zdragnar wrote: post #124
klyrs wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a "satire[1]" meme floating with some disinformation about book bans in Florida. However, the state is second, only behind Texas, in actual book bans[2]. Relatedly, the vague "don't say gay" law has a significant impact on LGBTQ teachers right to free expression -- straight teachers are totally free to talk about their spouses, for example, but gay teachers are not. Quite reminiscent of the "don't ask don't…

What's struck me as weird about this is that I don't recall a single teacher ever mentioning their spouse, or their personal weekend plans. The idea that a teacher wants to talk to their students about their personal lives is utterly foreign to me. Maybe it's just a sign of times changing? Edit: this thought came to me in the context of a quote I saw from a teacher upset he couldn't talk about going surfing with his…

Did you never have a teacher you were friendly with or served as a mentor even outside of class? I grew up in poverty and if it wasn't for a couple teachers going above and beyond I probably would've never got the help I need to get free community college tuition.

With cases like that, personal details end up discussed inadvertently because it's impossible to avoid. So-and-so's wife might be a teacher in the same district, or they might show up at school during late work hours and so forth. Same if they're running a club or some extracurricular activity.

I don't think that's especially weird at all.

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

#134

Post by pwinnski »

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".

Hi from Texas, where real-life candidates belonging to one of the two major political parties spew open hate and then win office.

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

#135

Post by [deleted] »

scarface74 wrote: post #126
b800h wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a potential argument against this. 1. Network effects mean that there's only space for one platform in a particular niche. 2. There are reports (are they reliable?) that people who are more left wing are more habitually online and post much more. If the above two are true, then left-wing social networks will naturally dominate.

There is only space for one platform, yet there are plenty of platforms for discourse. Are you really arguing that for instance Trump or Foxnews don’t have the following to start an alternate social media? As far as #2, why should tgat be an argument for the government to be involved?

[deleted]

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

#136

Post by Meekro »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #47
Kerbonut wrote: post #9

I agree and we should classify the underlying Internet service providers, that social media providers depends on, as common carriers as well!

That's where the cognitive dissonance here kicks in: the case for ISPs to be common-carriers looks much stronger (from any principled perspective) than does the case for social media networks. And yet, because this is a party-political issue, you have the Republican Party swearing up and down that ISPs are not (presumably because common-carrier status implies net neutrality and this is unpopular with donors or someth…

I agree that we should have both ISPs and major social networks as common carriers. Based on talking with Republican friends, I think the difference is that social networks are well-known censors. If Xfinity was known to censor as aggressively as Twitter and Facebook do, they would also be in favor of common carrier rules for them. But as it is, they're content to leave well enough alone.

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

#137

Post by weakfish »

a-user-you-like wrote: post #127
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."

Quoted post unavailable.

What book is encouraging that? Or are you using hyperbole to try and make your point sound more scary?

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

#138

Post by klyrs »

zdragnar wrote: post #124
klyrs wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a "satire[1]" meme floating with some disinformation about book bans in Florida. However, the state is second, only behind Texas, in actual book bans[2]. Relatedly, the vague "don't say gay" law has a significant impact on LGBTQ teachers right to free expression -- straight teachers are totally free to talk about their spouses, for example, but gay teachers are not. Quite reminiscent of the "don't ask don't…

What's struck me as weird about this is that I don't recall a single teacher ever mentioning their spouse, or their personal weekend plans. The idea that a teacher wants to talk to their students about their personal lives is utterly foreign to me. Maybe it's just a sign of times changing? Edit: this thought came to me in the context of a quote I saw from a teacher upset he couldn't talk about going surfing with his…

I had a teacher who taught a class that regularly featured his vacation photos because he spent his summers traveling. Sounds super corny, but he managed to make it interesting, and the first-person account brought to life the countries, religions and philosophies that we learning about. His wife occasionally showed up in those pictures.

My school also had two married teachers who shared a surname. We all knew they were married.

There were also a few teachers (band, orchestra, sports coaches) whose spouses would volunteer at events and travel with them.

Also quite a few teachers wore religious symbols -- cross on a necklace kind of thing. And quite a few of my teachers had pictures of their families on their desks. They didn't make a big deal about it, but evidence was in plain sight.

Now, I was in the high school in the 90s. I'm not sure when you think this changed.

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

#139

Post by scarface74 »

b800h wrote: post #131
scarface74 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only space for one platform, yet there are plenty of platforms for discourse. Are you really arguing that for instance Trump or Foxnews don’t have the following to start an alternate social media? As far as #2, why should tgat be an argument for the government to be involved?

Well I'm hedging my bets. If it really is true that the market in a particular area (microblogging for instance) can only be dominated by a single company, and also that left-wing users are more active, then absolutely, I'm arguing that Fox would be unable to maintain a successful rival to Twitter. As far as #2 is concerned, well I don't know if it is an argument for the government to become involved, but if somethin…

I actually have my own “micro blog” at wait for it “micro.blog” (https://digitalnomadder.micro.blog/about/) It’s more of a journaling thing. But I’m sure if I had the reach of many of the conservatives I could make a healthy living by monetizing it (not interested) or at least getting my own views out there.

I’ve made the offer plenty of times, I would gladly overcharge any conservative to lead the creation of a social media site that could stand up to the likely traffic. It would be like the atheist who got rich selling a mobile Bible app.

If I couldn’t lead the charge, I need to give up my $DayJob.

Post reply on HN