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

161–170 of 598 posts

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

#161

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

anon291 wrote: post #157
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think you'll find that if you talk with technically literate Republicans you'll find a lot of support for net neutrality. Unfortunately, my party's base is made up of people who are not super into tech unlike the Democratic party whose base is increasingly rich tech workers. On the other hand, my fellow Republicans do jobs you may think unimportant,like farming, plumbing, construction, etc. Perhaps, when you think…

I'm not at all speaking about Republican voters; I'm talking about Republican politicians; sorry I didn't make that clear.

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

#162

Post by sircastor »

anon291 wrote: post #146
scarface74 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Disney properties were already self-governing. The Florida legislature revoked that in political retaliation, and passed the cost on to nearby counties.

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

#163

Post by kelseyfrog »

triceratops wrote: post #55
eddof13 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Enjoy the deluge of spam

As a post-social media accelerationalist, the utter chaos that would result in social media platforms' inability to combat spam would devolve into the inability to exist at all and should be welcomed. Social media's negative externality is our individual mental health. One of the greatest things we could do for our mental health would be a complete and utter implosion of uncensorable social media. It cannot come soon enough.

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

#164

Post by jasonlotito »

anon291 wrote: post #146
scarface74 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The issue isn't them punishing Disney (I mean, Fla residents do for the fact that they would take on debt for doing so, but whatever).

The issue is their motive. Motive is critical.

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

#165

Post by scarface74 »

anon291 wrote: post #146
scarface74 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They had been “self governing” for decades. The city that now has to take on billions of Disney’s debt is suing Florida. No one wanted the responsibility of “governing” and zoning requirements for Disney. Not the local government and traditional the state didn’t. It was clearly done to punish them.

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

#166

Post by pessimizer »

jcranmer wrote: post #118
pessimizer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take content moderation on a case by case basis. That's like asking me to decide between whether all movies are good or all movies should be banned. > Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. We should help them by giving them far less latitude.

Note that the First Amendment prohibits the government from being able to mandate any moderation guidelines whatsoever, as moderation is inherently a content-based restriction on speech.

My problem is that the government has found a sweet spot where it can regulate speech and surveil without limits through dependent proxies. It has no need to mandate moderation guidelines.

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

#168

Post by scarface74 »

yamtaddle wrote: post #151
scarface74 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in that case, why not let the government just take over any company it sees fit? If you’re okay with the government controlling any legal organization do yoh feel the same way about government controlling churches? Advocacy groups?

> So in that case, why not let the government just take over any company it sees fit? Well, seizing is rather different than regulating, for one thing, and for another, because most of the time I'd probably think it was a bad idea. I do think it's an option that should be on the table in some circumstances. Just that it's probably wises rarely to use it. I didn't write that I thought the government ought to interfere…

I bet Hobby Lobby and the Christian baker would beg to differ…

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

#169

Post by pessimizer »

nrb wrote: post #119
pessimizer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're biased against something, because they delete legal content.

Who cares that it’s legal though? You’re on their property, committed to abiding by their terms of service even. If you’re hosting a garden party and one of the guests has become disruptive to everyone else, are you not allowed to demand they cease their behavior or leave your property just because their angry ranting is not illegal speech? You’re totally within your right to say “I’m out, this party sucks anyway, yo…

Do you feel the same way about telephones? How about electricity? Is it out of the realm of possibility that a conscientious electrical supplier might not want to power a racist's computer?

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

#170

Post by systemvoltage »

layer8 wrote: post #20
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!

Also services like Cloudflare, and email providers like GMail.

Cloudflare is the last place I'd imagine it'd get political. Recent revelations were nothing short of shocking. Cloudflare is supposed to be strictly proxy and firewall, yet, they're bending over to a tiny group of activists.

SV corporations are spineless.

Post reply on HN