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

271–280 of 598 posts

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

#271

Post by joshuamorton »

anon291 wrote: post #150
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…

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 total…

If I donate a book that is banned, the school library will not accept it.

That is a ban.

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

#273

Post by caf »

favflam wrote: post #266

I think the Chinese have something to teach us. Basically, once a social network surpasses say, 20M users, it becomes a defacto political entity, with the power to move elections. Given this immense power, the government should regulate accordingly. Instead of passing detailed regulations though, I am of the opinion that if a company passes 200B USD in enterprise value, that Congress should get the right to appoint 5…

So your solution to the worry that large social networks have the power to move elections, is to put that power in the hands of the people with the most incentive to move elections?

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

#274

Post by klyrs »

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.

But kindergarten classes talk about families. And many families have zero, one or two moms; zero, one or two dads. I'm one of two moms and other kids started asking questions about that when our kid was in kindergarten. The Florida law is meant to make kids like mine feel othered and isolated. It isn't about protecting innocence, it's about punishing deviance.

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

#275

Post by tomcam »

favorited wrote: post #225
tomcam wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions. For example?

"Palm Beach County school district tells teachers to review classroom library books for references to racism, sexism and oppression" https://www.wlrn.org/education/2022-06-09/palm-beach-county-...

So “review” now means “purge“?

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

#276

Post by pclmulqdq »

scarface74 wrote: post #202
pclmulqdq wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

This isn't the surrounding city, this is a group of "concerned citizens" in the surrounding city - which is a big difference. The citizens of that city will likely be hurt by this, since it may cause a drop in tourist revenue and employment from Disney.

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

#277

Post by chrismcb »

uup wrote: post #234
TeeMassive wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether or not the first amendment applies to PACs is highly contentious. For instance, I don't think people have a constitutional right to form corporations, so I'm all for limiting the political speech of PACs. Just as I'm ok with limiting things people can do with their car via licensing.

Political speech is speech. In fact it is the most important speech to protect.

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

#278

Post by scarface74 »

rayiner wrote: post #262
scarface74 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why stop at social media? Why shouldn’t the state control every website that allows comments including advocacy groups, religious groups etc?

Because different things are different? We have different rules for say public restaurants versus private clubs?

In that case, what makes HN different from Facebook? Should HN not be able to ban overly political posts? Why can’t Facebook claim to be a private club that you have to join?

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

#279

Post by scarface74 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #276
scarface74 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The surrounding city didn’t want this to happen https://deadline.com/2022/05/disney-ron-desantis-dont-say-ga...

This isn't the surrounding city, this is a group of "concerned citizens" in the surrounding city - which is a big difference. The citizens of that city will likely be hurt by this, since it may cause a drop in tourist revenue and employment from Disney.

Yes I’m sure other people in the city really want to take on Disney’s debt and want to take responsibility for zoning, police, fire, etc for Disney?

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

#280

Post by uup »

chrismcb wrote: post #277
uup wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not the first amendment applies to PACs is highly contentious. For instance, I don't think people have a constitutional right to form corporations, so I'm all for limiting the political speech of PACs. Just as I'm ok with limiting things people can do with their car via licensing.

Political speech is speech. In fact it is the most important speech to protect.

The issue at hand is whether or not you can spend unlimited amounts of money on that speech via a corporation. Individuals cannot spend unlimited money donating to political campaigns, for instance.

Ultimately, we value free speech because it leads to a more fair and just society. It's not a rule that is followed by blind faith. Personally, I think allowing unlimited corporate spending on political speech amplifies the voices of a select few so that others are not heard. Essentially censorship of the masses. I fail to see how that leads to a fair and just society.

Post reply on HN