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

201–210 of 598 posts

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

#201

Post by krapp »

Buttons840 wrote: post #198

They're doing it at the wrong layer. Make the internet a common carrier and maybe regulate AWS (etc) to ensure everyone can host their own websites somewhere. How can social media be a common carrier when it cannot be accessed through a common carrier? It feels like we're fighting to have our one sentence displayed among the ads, while giving up the ability to create our own webpages and platforms.

>Make the internet a common carrier and maybe regulate AWS (etc) to ensure everyone can host their own websites somewhere

Everyone already can host their own websites somewhere, AWS isn't even required.

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

#202

Post by scarface74 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #199
sircastor wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As well as the potential revenue, which is immense. The city around Disney could introduce a small sales tax or raise property taxes and their anticipated shortfall would likely be fixed.

The surrounding city didn’t want this to happen

https://deadline.com/2022/05/disney-ron-desantis-dont-say-ga...

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

#203

Post by cowtools »

honkler wrote: post #200
nrb wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

If you don't like it, just build your own state. smh.

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

#204

Post by juve1996 »

blast wrote: post #100
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…

I don't see how letting governments regulate social media is in any way good. I don't know how anyone who is "libertarian" can now support this initiative of government overreach.

Imagine creating a forum and now the Florida government dictates what you can and can't moderate. Disastrous.

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

#205

Post by cowtools »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #163
triceratops wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't read this whole thing but I agree it would be pretty funny if social media was legally forced to host spam

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

#206

Post by juve1996 »

space_fountain wrote: post #125
blast wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn't it consistent to say the government deciding not distribute books is wrong for the same reason the government telling private companies they must distribute speech they disagree with is wrong? Both clearly violate free speech. Maybe you don't actually think free speech is the standard, maybe it's something more vague like an open society, but I don't see this as any different than the state mandating churches r…

This is the problem today.

Everyone says they want free speech. But deep down they don't. Some don't want gay marriage written in books, and some don't want anti-vaxxers to post misinformation. Those are 2 sides of the same coin.

Freedom of speech is a critical cornerstone of liberal government. The fact that so many sides want to reduce this right is what is scary.

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

#207

Post by cowtools »

colinmhayes wrote: post #183
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)

Hard to believe people who have actually thought about the consequences of demoderation could possibly support it. It would instantly be the end of all forums. Moderation isn't always perfect, but it is infinitely better than a free for all.

The alternative to centralized moderation is voluntary peer-to-peer communication, not a firehose.

Something like secushare would take the place of forums I assume: https://secushare.org/society

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

#208

Post by jackson1442 »

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…

It was relatively common in school to discuss what happened over breaks, weekends, etc. to build conversation skills. Also, almost every k12 teacher I had would prepare a slideshow about themselves to present on the first day of class along with the syllabus. After all, you're spending a lot of time in that classroom as a k12 student.

Many teachers also have pictures of their family on their desks, as one might in their office at any other job.

Especially in lower grades, teachers are not robots that exclusively teach content from bell to bell each day.

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

#209

Post by andrew_ »

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?

putting the erroneous media-assigned name of the bill in quotes doesn't make it any less erroneous. while the bill has flaws and is justly upsetting, we should not continue to propagate a falsehood.

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

#210

Post by cam_l »

munk-a wrote: post #122
blast wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am a one-issue voter (whenever it's on the ballot) and my issue is voting reform because, in my view, the two party system America (and almost Canada!) is stuck with is just making inter-party discussions on policies impossible. Once the political class has stratified like it has in America and can box out anyone who doesn't pass a litmus test of dozens of issues (Oh, you're pro-gun rights but also pro-abortion acc…

The thing is, even just a few non party affiliate votes in parliament can have a huge impact. Both parties could get more of a chance of their pet policies being implemented under a multi party system. That is, if you were to take the political parties at face value as caring about the issues they promote.

The reality is, the parties are systemically more interested in self preservation than governing. So neither seem to support serious reform.

Post reply on HN