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

171–180 of 598 posts

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

#171

Post by jedberg »

There are several types of common carriers.

One are transportation companies (including companies that transport electronic communication). The key differentiator between those and social media are that the content is private. So while they have to carry anything, the content of what they are carrying is from one party to another, and the carrier may not even know what it is. So that model shouldn't apply to social media.

The other type are broadcasters, like TV and Radio. But the way those are regulated, they don't have to show anyone's content all the time. They get to choose what content is shown, but also be liable for the content being shown.

But then there are cable companies. Which carry multiple broadcast channels. And they are not liable for the content on the channels they carry, nor do they have to carry all channels. What they do have to do however is set aside some of their capacity for public access. This is how social media should be regulated.

They can choose what channels (broadcasters) they want to carry, and the broadcaster is liable for content. Funny enough, this is already how social media works! The only change would be every social media being forced to add a section that is unmoderated for "public access" in which they would not be liable for the content.

I imagine that would go about as well as you'd expect. It would be filled with child porn, hate messages, and the occasional unpopular political opinion.

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

#172

Post by colinmhayes »

jrm4 wrote: post #143
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."

Right, but the enforcement is actually "no one can make anyone else uncomfortable about being white"

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

#173

Post by colinmhayes »

smaryjerry wrote: post #86
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.5% of Americans could never log into Facebook, Twitter or anything ever again with no substantial impact on their daily lives. The remaining 0.5% have careers centered around social media and should probably find a real job. Honest to goodness, the hyperventilation about how "important" social media is just amazes me.

And 100% of people could live without phone companies with no impact to their daily lives, we’ve got internet right? Of course I would be the one defining impact here. You may consider impact to daily lives not substantial, but others see the substantial impact of not being able to reach their family, friends, and customers and the disadvantage that comes with others having that access but you not. It’s not like Face…

No, my job requires me to have internet while travelling. That means phone companies. It could be solved, but would have a huge impact on my life.

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

#174

Post by ramesh31 »

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.

>This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them.

The same argument has been made against regulation since regulation existed. Government should exist in large part to reign in the private market when an obvious public good is at stake.

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

#175

Post by puffoflogic »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #56
eddof13 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fine with downvoting, just no banning or censoring for unpopular opinions

People don't usually get banned for their opinions. They get banned for being jerks. Try enabling showdead. There are some accounts marked as [dead] that I don't get, but the vast, vast majority of flagkilled posts and banned accounts I've seen don't deserve the product of someone else's labor to propagate their speech.

Dang explicitly bans people for posting things which are too damaging to left-wing politicians.

Just today he explicitly editorialized a post title (with a comment explaining why) because it exposed some government corruption; I don't even remember what because it was just so unremarkable and ordinary for HN. ETA: Oh lol it was the same subject as this post, but different title. I guess he let this one get away from him.

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

#176

Post by deathanatos »

anon291 wrote: post #153
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.5% of Americans could never log into Facebook, Twitter or anything ever again with no substantial impact on their daily lives. The remaining 0.5% have careers centered around social media and should probably find a real job. Honest to goodness, the hyperventilation about how "important" social media is just amazes me.

This is not true. You need a Facebook account to interact with a lot of businesses. Many businesses don't have normal websites for better or worse. Many government agencies announce things through Twitter and Facebook for better or worse (worse in my opinion).

I've been logged out of Facebook for like 10 years, and in that time, I've not once needed my FB account to interact with a business.

> Many government agencies announce things through Twitter and Facebook for better or worse

Twitter seems to be the more common of the two there. They should not do that.

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

#177

Post by silisili »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #65
eddof13 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What law prevents fast cars in the US?

The Tesla roadster claims 250MPH, and there are others street legal up to 300 afaik.

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

#178

Post by colinmhayes »

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…

> jobs you may think unimportant,like farming, plumbing, construction,

> Perhaps try explaining instead of dismissing?

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

#179

Post by tialaramex »

jrm4 wrote: post #143
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."

The thing is, just because it seems as though if the nonsense rules were enforced impartially they'd look like fools doesn't help you because they'll be the ones deciding how the rules are to be enforced.

If you explain "literacy test" voting laws prior to the US Voting Rights Act without that sort of context people imagine well, you send one smart black teacher, they do a few lessons, next year every black person in the town can vote, while presumably many poor white folks can't right?

But that's not how it works, in practice the "test" is whether you're white or not. If you're white you "pass" and if you're black you "don't pass", and if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident".

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

#180

Post by colinmhayes »

pessimizer wrote: post #70
triceratops wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

All rights are legal rights. No one has any rights without a legal system.
Post reply on HN