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

141–150 of 598 posts

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

#141

Post by radford-neal »

throwaway4220 wrote: post #58
Mattasher wrote: post #15

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 clai…

So if you say the sky is green, and NASA says "That's wrong", you call that censorship?

If someone writes a post saying the sky is green, NASA says "that's wrong", and then goes on to say that if the social media platform doesn't remove the post saying the sky is green, NASA will forbid the platform from sending any messages using communication satellites, then yes, that is censorship.

Of course, they're unlikely to behave so blatantly, at least initially. They're more likely to just sort of hint at how anti-trust prosecutions might be started or not depending on whether the platform follows the government's "advice".

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

#142

Post by kcplate »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73
Mattasher wrote: post #15

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 clai…

Sorry, where are the First Amendment issues with allowing social media networks to censor whatever they want? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Let's please not make the mistake o…

> Let's please not make the mistake of saying all issues that relate to freedom of speech are First Amendment issues.

The problem is when government and social media actively collude to side step the government’s responsibility to the first amendment…the government has dragged the social media companies into first amendment territory.

You have two ways of handling this: one…have the government police itself…which it won’t do, because it is already actively trying to find ways around its responsibility to freedom of speech; Or two, start lawsuits that expose the collusion and start making it expensive for social media companies to collude with the government to censor.

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

#143

Post by jrm4 »

paxys wrote: post #113

When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.

No, but seriously, they're doing this stuff in such a sloppy way that I'd definitely be looking for opportunity, e.g. the wording of one of their anti-CRT things essentially said "no one can make someone else uncomfortable about race" and I'm like "word? I can work with that."

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

#144

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

kcplate wrote: post #142
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, where are the First Amendment issues with allowing social media networks to censor whatever they want? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Let's please not make the mistake o…

> Let's please not make the mistake of saying all issues that relate to freedom of speech are First Amendment issues. The problem is when government and social media actively collude to side step the government’s responsibility to the first amendment…the government has dragged the social media companies into first amendment territory. You have two ways of handling this: one…have the government police itself…which it…

>The problem is when government and social media actively collude to side step the government’s responsibility to the first amendment

The government's responsibility to the First Amendment is "don't make laws that limit freedom of religion, speech or assembly". I don't know what it means for government to collude with a third party to side-step that responsibility.

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

#145

Post by pessimizer »

paxys wrote: post #113

When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.

[flagged]

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

#146

Post by anon291 »

scarface74 wrote: post #121
munk-a wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time - this one move might make Florida accidentally the most progressive state in America.

The same Florida that passed a law specifically to punish Disney because they spoke out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law and passed the “Stop Woke” act?

They punished Disney by not granting them self governing status.

In my world, corporations being subject to the government is the Hallmark of progressivism.

But no one's actually paying attention to the actual actions, just their own view of the motivation

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

#147

Post by _-david-_ »

scarface74 wrote: post #104
pessimizer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is absolutely nothing stopping conservatives from establishing their own social media platform. Conservatives love “the free market” as long as it is working for them. Whose fault is it that Truth Social is an abysmal failure?

You mean like Parler? Oh wait, some of the biggest tech companies, for all intents and purposes, killed it.

You can have a free market with monopolies/duopolies.

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

#148

Post by spoils19 »

pessimizer wrote: post #145
paxys wrote: post #113

When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#149

Post by pessimizer »

bandyaboot wrote: post #109
pessimizer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship. That’s an easy sign right up until you have to define “political prisoner”. According to some, people convicted of crimes committed during the January 6th insanity are “political prisoners”.

Political prisoners are people imprisoned for their speech and influence. A Jan 6 person could very well be a political prisoner, and since I'm not a Democrat I can't be sure of their collective guilt without actually reading about their cases.

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

#150

Post by anon291 »

klyrs wrote: post #78
case0x00 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what are you referring?

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…

There are books public schools or public libraries may not carry, not bans..

Germany making pro Nazi rhetoric illegal no matter where is a ban (one I can agree with)

Florida making sure their Public money is not spent on this is not a ban. You can still own and publish these books in Florida. Or have them in a privately owned library or at a private university or school.

Let's stop hyperbolizing. It is actually totally reasonable to censor books in libraries targeted towards children. Not doing so is unreasonable.

Post reply on HN