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

241–250 of 598 posts

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

#241

Post by rufus_foreman »

triceratops wrote: post #62
pessimizer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?

> 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?

Do you believe the electric company should be able to choose not to provide you with electricity if you express an opinion with which the owners of that company disagree? That would be an example of the owners of the electric company asserting their property rights.

Might there be situations where property rights need to be weighed against other considerations?

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

#242

Post by scarface74 »

rayiner wrote: post #230
seadan83 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this. The 1st amendment protects free speech from the government. If you're in a bar, and they don't like what you're saying, they can ask you to leave. Then it all boils down to whether things like Twitter and Facebook are akin to the public square, a public street. That is hard to fathom given you are using their servers, their software, which they pay for and provide as a service (in something of a quid-pro-q…

But is Facebook like a bar? Or is it a pipe for user generated content?

So is HN. Are you comfortable with the government telling HN that it can’t ban overly political content?

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

#243

Post by 8note »

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.

Or 3. Spend all your time advertising for whichever business pays you the most

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

#244

Post by scarface74 »

layer8 wrote: post #224
scarface74 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is an email server a common carrier? People have been setting up email servers for decades and there are plenty of alternatives.

It is a common carrier by virtue of hosting many of the recipients you want to send email to.

That’s not what common Cartier means. If I set up my own mail server does it become a common carrier?

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

#245

Post by layer8 »

scarface74 wrote: post #244
layer8 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a common carrier by virtue of hosting many of the recipients you want to send email to.

That’s not what common Cartier means. If I set up my own mail server does it become a common carrier?

If you host the email of as many people as GMail, I'd say yes.

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

#246

Post by bastawhiz »

TeeMassive wrote: post #227
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.

Net neutrality was about bandwith, not content. PACs lobbies and religion are 1A protected and not specific to Florida or Republicans, they can't and don't ban book that's fake news unless you consider all books acceptable in schools such as Mein Kampf and Play Boy magazines. Also none of what you said addresses the the proposed legislation.

> Net neutrality was about bandwith, not content

This is not true. Net neutrality is about service providers not getting to choose which services you connect with. If your ISP decided you can use Hulu but have to pay $10/mo extra for Netflix, that's a net neutrality issue. It's not about the volume of bytes. It's about who the bytes are coming from and going to, which is a content issue.

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

#247

Post by imgabe »

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."

Florida is a state. Several counties in Florida are removing books from school libraries. There is no statewide policy in Florida to ban books from libraries in general. Libraries are generally managed at the city / county level.

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

#248

Post by 8note »

pessimizer wrote: post #37
cjensen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress passed a law to specifically ensure they are websites are not responsible for the speech they reproduce. This law is good because it encourages content moderation because there are never consequences for the moderation decisions.

> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?

Yes. Even if you don't like the results, you can cheaply use another medium, like talking to people in person.

The freedom of association is a valuable one, and people should be allowed to decide who they associate with to talk to

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

#249

Post by thatnerdyguy »

parkingrift wrote: post #220
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?

Quoted post unavailable.

And if their teacher is gay and is asked about who they are married to? Or if one of the students have gay parents, can they draw a picture of them? Etc...

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

#250

Post by webmobdev »

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.

   The Florida law says a social media platform "may not willfully deplatform a candidate for office" and imposes fines of up to $250,000 per day on social media companies that ban candidates for elected office. The law also says social platforms "may not apply or use post-prioritization or shadow banning algorithms for content and material posted by or about... a candidate," and may not "censor, deplatform, or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast."
If this is what the law is actually about, what's wrong here here? Do you really want corporates to decide what political views you should have access to? Every country has laws against hate speech or slander / defamation - if a politician or journalist says something inappropriate on these platform, it is the law that should punish them (even if the punishment is as light as forcing them / the platform to delete their post). (Related topic - even the Indian Supreme Court is currently deliberating on clarifying and enforcing laws on hate speech against journalist / editors / media platforms who have been increasingly indulging in hate mongering - "Where Is Our Nation Headed?", Supreme Court Expresses Concern About Hate Speech In Media, Asks Why Centre Is Standing As "Mute Witness"? - https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/where-is-our-nation-heade... ).
Post reply on HN