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

301–310 of 598 posts

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

#301

Post by seadan83 »

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?

I think the definition for a 'pipe' is a bit ambiguous. With a solid definition we could then test its criteria against how Facebook operates.

IMHO, Facebook is like the bulletin board in a bar. A pipe would likely treat all content equally, Facebook does not do that, and I don't think there is an expectation that they would. If Facebook were a pipe, then there would be no recourse to moderate anything. Ergo it could be chock full of illegal content & porn, and if it were a pipe - nobody could complain to Facebook about the 'bad' stuff that is getting posted. Hence, seemingly they can moderate user-generated content pretty much however they please, it's their bulletin board. Further, if Facebook were a pipe, it could easily get flooded by several hundred/thousand payed trolls to post an overwhelming amount of content that Facebook could do nothing but allow to drown out everything else. Seemingly government telling Facebook they couldn't do (or how to do) moderation could put Facebook out of business (it could just wind up being crap/porn/spam)

I think the bulletin board analogy within a private space is likely a good analogy. The theme of the board is supposed to be posting for your friends by friends. I think it's within Facebooks right to then keep to that theme. The alternative is that they cannot in which case the users could utterly hijack the content within Facebook, and seemingly government regulation at that point would be preventing them from operating how they want (a seemingly very Ayn Rand like situation)

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

#302

Post by wolfgang42 »

andrew_ wrote: post #258
andrew_ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For any downvoters, please review the following https://t.e2ma.net/click/sv236h/8z0tiag/wa9559 It does not ban nor prevent the use of the word "gay."

More official link: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...

> 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur [for many students]

So I guess technically you can say the word, as long as you don’t explain what it means?

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

#303

Post by caf »

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 are saying that shareholders ought to hold this immense power that say Facebook has to move elections?

Certainly, if the alternative is that those in government get to wield it instead. I would wager I've considerably more trust in government and politicians than average - I do believe that in the main they're working very hard for what they perceive to be the greater good - but I draw the line at the politicians getting to directly control the political media.

Part of this is that I don't think Facebook's power alone is "immense" - but if you had all of the large media centrally controlled then you'd be getting there.

The very idea completely compromises those "bi-annual elections". How can you effectively challenge the state when all the large media is state-controlled?

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

#304

Post by hatefulmoron »

LBJsPNS wrote: post #259
munk-a wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"you're pro-gun rights but also pro-abortion access? Sorry, neither us nor the other guys want you" Uhm... you do realize there are plenty of us on the left who adopt exactly those positions?

Isn't that his point? Plenty of you exist, yet your party will not represent your interests. The "left" party that you vote for has chosen a set of values that are contradictory to your own, and you have no recourse because who else will you vote for?

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

#305

Post by pGuitar »

brk wrote: post #12

This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation. Politicians really should not have special exemptions or privileges when it comes to free speech issues. Eg: they have exceptions to use robo-calls, text spam, etc. Realistically, we probably need to define when an organization is a media influencer vs. a niche communications platform. I do think Facebook/Twitter/Etc. need to be held…

Motivations don't matter... this is what needs to happen.

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

#306

Post by munk-a »

wolfgang42 wrote: post #302
andrew_ wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any downvoters, please review the following https://t.e2ma.net/click/sv236h/8z0tiag/wa9559 It does not ban nor prevent the use of the word "gay."

More official link: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... > 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur [for many students] So I guess technically you can say the word, as long as you don’t explain what it means?

I guess it's more accurate to say it's the "only say gay in the context of being happy" bill? You can say the word - but it can't be about sexual orientation.

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

#307

Post by llanowarelves »

munk-a wrote: post #116
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.

At the same time - this one move might make Florida accidentally the most progressive state in America.

California did the reverse.

Prop 209 then Prop 16.

At first you were racist by being racist. Then you were racist for not wanting to repeal anti-racist laws.

Just like how not having blind auditions for orchestras was racist (not hiring enough minorities). And now having blind auditions is racist (not hiring enough minorities).

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

#308

Post by dc-programmer »

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…

Reading NextDoor completely disabused me of any notion that smaller government is better. It seems like everyone involved in local politics is an absolute crank. You can see this clearly in New Hampshire were the goofy libertarians who moved from other states gang up to defund public schools.

At least with the Feds they are under a constant microscope. The most heinous corrupt shit in America almost always happens at the local level because they can get away with it

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

#309

Post by pclmulqdq »

klyrs wrote: post #78
case0x00 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what are you referring?

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…

The so-called "don't say gay" law doesn't actually restrict LGBTQ teachers from talking about their gay partners in informal contexts: it bans them from teaching kids in a formal context about gender and sexuality (of any kind - heterosexual or homosexual) before a certain age and restricting it based on curriculum standards above that age.

The idea that the law restricts a male teacher from having a family photo or talking to students about what he did with his husband over vacation is completely false. That would be as illegal as preventing a teacher from praying with students in their off-time (after football games), which recently got re-affirmed by the supreme court. It only binds teachers' speech when they are operating in their official capacity as agents of the state.

While you might not agree with this particular restriction, agents of the state generally do not have free speech when they are acting in their official capacity. Teachers, DMV employees, and police officers all have lots of restrictions on their official speech. The ability of the people to restrict the speech of their agents is very important for maintaining a democracy. It keeps religion out of school curricula and it is what makes cops read you your rights when you are arrested.

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

#310

Post by 0xFEEDC0DE »

wolfgang42 wrote: post #302
andrew_ wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any downvoters, please review the following https://t.e2ma.net/click/sv236h/8z0tiag/wa9559 It does not ban nor prevent the use of the word "gay."

More official link: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... > 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur [for many students] So I guess technically you can say the word, as long as you don’t explain what it means?

Why are you omitting the entire sentence? "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in."
Post reply on HN