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

311–320 of 598 posts

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

#311

Post by munk-a »

0xFEEDC0DE wrote: post #300
thatnerdyguy wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which is the gigantic loophole - the bill isn't limited to primary grade levels. A parent suing U of F about their child being exposed to information about "sexual orientation" is perfectly allowed within the letter of that law. It says "primary grade levels" and then throws in a completely unlimited "age-appropriate" clause that allows it to apply to any person at any school receiving state funding.

Whenever these bills use squishy language like "age-appropriate" it's to provide an easy out for politicians at the time while causing a chilling effect over all discussion.

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

#312

Post by shadowfacts »

tomcam wrote: post #275
favorited wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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“?

Oh, I wonder what could possibly happen based on the results of the initial review. Let's see:

> District staff sent out a list of questions teachers have to answer, like — does a book encourage students to believe that people are racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously? [...] If teachers answer “yes” or “unsure” to any of the questions in the district’s guidance, the book is to be removed from the classroom for further review.

Gee, would ya look at that

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

#313

Post by wolfgang42 »

0xFEEDC0DE wrote: post #310
wolfgang42 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I cut the second half for brevity: it seems that the bill does in fact prevent the use of the word under at least some circumstances, so I condensed the exceptions since they’re not relevant to addressing the claim that it doesn’t do so at all.

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

#314

Post by zeroonetwothree »

uup wrote: post #280
chrismcb wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Individuals can spend unlimited money directly.

Let’s say I want to personally spent $1 million supporting a candidate I like. But I’m worried their rival will sue me for libel. So I’d like to form a LLC so that I won’t be personally liable in that case. This seems reasonable to allow.

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

#315

Post by tomcam »

shadowfacts wrote: post #312
tomcam wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So “review” now means “purge“?

Oh, I wonder what could possibly happen based on the results of the initial review. Let's see: > District staff sent out a list of questions teachers have to answer, like — does a book encourage students to believe that people are racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously? [...] If teachers answer “yes” or “unsure” to any of the questions in the district’s guidance, the book is to be removed…

“Further review” means purge? Since when?

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

#316

Post by fuckyah »

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#317

Post by Helmut10001 »

I would say it is not possible to change social networks at this stage, they need to be replaced with something new. What this could be? Maybe the Matrix protocol [1], already connecting 40 Million users worldwide. There are various tools that use the Protocol already in a web-context, e.g. Cactus Comments [2] or the Matrix cerulean test [3]. Maybe something else.

[1]: https://spec.matrix.org/latest/

[2]: https://gitlab.com/cactus-comments

[3]: https://matrix.org/blog/2020/12/18/introducing-cerulean

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

#318

Post by dijonman2 »

aNoob7000 wrote: post #52
Mattasher wrote: post #15

At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the CDC), ban certain people in response to political pressures, and hand over user's private data without a warrant. That doesn't mean regulating them like common carries is good or workable, but we need to start by recognizing that there are first amendment clai…

The problem is finding the right balance between free speech and censorship. I look forward to see how cases that go to the Supreme Court are going to be handled. I personally believe that a private business like Facebook has the right to control content on their app/website.

No amount of censorship is acceptable, IMO.

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

#319

Post by kadoban »

nradov wrote: post #285
kadoban wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The media-dubbed “don’t say gay” bill forbids kindergarten to second grade teachers from discussing sexual orientation or sexual identity. Oh, the humanity. And if that's _all_ it said you'd be exactly right. What's the rest of the text?

You can find the text of Florida House Bill 1557 here. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557

I've read it. It says more than the k-2nd grader bit. The rest is ambiguous bullshit designed to be selectively enforced against lgbtq or just silence anyone by fear.

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

#320

Post by specialist »

IX-103 wrote: post #284
webmobdev wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Even if we ignore the debate about whether a private enterprise should be forced to pay for speech they do not want, the bill is bad law. Who do they define as a candidate? If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? What requirements are there? Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Finally, what constitutes post-prioritization? If I search for something, then ideally posts r…

Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate.

Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist.

I don't have the heart to respond to the rest of your objections.

Post reply on HN