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

291–300 of 598 posts

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

#291

Post by scarface74 »

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…

You realize that there was just another story on HN where the government pushed BigTech to censor information around Covid? This is the same government you want to give more power?

Do you really think that the in power government won’t push corporations to keep them in power?

It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power.

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

#292

Post by favflam »

kweingar wrote: post #268
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…

Why stop at the board? Why not have the government actually buy half of the company? Then the government can profit as well, like a sovereign wealth fund

My suggestions and implication of the suggestion is that companies will split themselves before they reach this level. Anti trust if you will.

If no anti trust, then become a federal agency.

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

#293

Post by jmull »

It would be pretty funny, in a terrible way, if the First Amendment was gutted in the name of free speech.

I'm somewhat amazed at how poorly the people in favor of this understand what appeal these social networks was to let them grow large in the first place.

Isn't it obvious that it wasn't by letting everyone post anything? We've had that all along. No need to force social networks to do what has already always been an option (go ahead and start that personal blog and post all your thoughts on it).

But of course, that's not what the politicians mean. They use the words "common carrier" to make it sound like they aren't doing what they are actually doing: attempting to force social media companies to be megaphones for the political messages of the politicians.

De facto state media. The very opposite of free speech and the first amendment.

It would be laughable if the Supreme Court was principled.

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

#294

Post by cmurf »

fny wrote: post #263
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.

And here I am wondering what the fuck happened to freedom. Both the right and left have become supremely prescriptive in their own ways. I want stronger local government. I have no way of trusting any of these assholes at the federal and state level. Why do they get to set standards for schools, infrastructure funding, or social policy? We have grid lock in part because there are different opinions on what's best. So…

No. Just go attend a school board meeting, and even run for school board. If you think only half your local citizens are kooks, consider yourself lucky. When standards are left up to them you get things the Lost Cause myth taught in school for 75 years. County school boards have the ability to strip history books from content they simply don't want taught, because it's politically inconvenient knowledge. How else are people worshipping Robert E Lee rather than referring to him as a traitor who waged war on his country to preserve and expand slavery in perpetuity, and got more Americans murdered than any other bad guy in American history? That's what local school boards gets you.

It's a nation, and students are nationals. There needs to be some national standards.

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

#295

Post by 1270018080 »

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…

It's literally impossible to implement with this system of government. The current two party system is the most efficient form of your idea that can be implemented in America.

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

#296

Post by scarface74 »

favflam wrote: post #289
caf wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Better Congress that operates under the US constitutions and bi-annual elections than shareholders, no? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that shareholders ought to hold this immense power that say Facebook has to move elections?

You mean the same government where Montana has just as many Senators as California and the person who won the popular vote in 2016 lost the Presidential election?

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

#297

Post by caf »

pessimizer wrote: post #154
brk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at the same time, politicians using social media to continuously publish blatant lies is also not a mechanism for stable government. In the past, this was regulated to a large degree by traditional media outlets being a filter of sorts and not just printing any random direct statement made by a politician. I think there is a balance between "social media must not interfere with blatantly false statements from pol…

> politicians using social media to continuously publish blatant lies is also not a mechanism for stable government. The solution being proposed is to allow administrations to keep pushing narratives that support the regime. You can't consider yourself a defender of the population against politicians while also granting them the power to suppress speech through proxies. When you find yourself favorably referring to m…

"through proxies" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

The alternative being suggested here seems to be to allow the regime to compel media outlet to publish their propaganda, because some don't like media outlets being able to choose the views they promote.

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

#298

Post by 1270018080 »

b800h wrote: post #120
scarface74 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely nothing stopping conservatives from establishing their own social media platform. Conservatives love “the free market” as long as it is working for them. Whose fault is it that Truth Social is an abysmal failure?

I think there's a potential argument against this. 1. Network effects mean that there's only space for one platform in a particular niche. 2. There are reports (are they reliable?) that people who are more left wing are more habitually online and post much more. If the above two are true, then left-wing social networks will naturally dominate.

I can't think of any left wing social networks. Have any ever existed?

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

#299

Post by rayiner »

scarface74 wrote: post #278
rayiner wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

HN seems like the archetype of an interest-specific club as compared to Facebook’s generic content platform.

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

#300

Post by 0xFEEDC0DE »

thatnerdyguy wrote: post #249
parkingrift wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes they can as long as it's age appropriate. "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students."....next
Post reply on HN