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

321–330 of 598 posts

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

#321

Post by intrasight »

juve1996 wrote: post #206
space_fountain wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it consistent to say the government deciding not distribute books is wrong for the same reason the government telling private companies they must distribute speech they disagree with is wrong? Both clearly violate free speech. Maybe you don't actually think free speech is the standard, maybe it's something more vague like an open society, but I don't see this as any different than the state mandating churches r…

This is the problem today. Everyone says they want free speech. But deep down they don't. Some don't want gay marriage written in books, and some don't want anti-vaxxers to post misinformation. Those are 2 sides of the same coin. Freedom of speech is a critical cornerstone of liberal government. The fact that so many sides want to reduce this right is what is scary.

Very well said - and inspired me to chime in.

We have much less freedom than we think, and the freedom we do have we pay a very high price for. I often use the phrase "What price freedom?" in conversations, and unfortunately most don't understand what it means.

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

#322

Post by kadoban »

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

"not age appropriate" is defined nowhere, intentionally. It's meant to be enforced against non-straights, or scare them into not being able to say anything at all.

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

#323

Post by judge2020 »

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…

Stronger local government would be great if people actually had the agency to move to any state they'd like. Instead, moving can be extremely difficult and time-consuming, so people are more likely to restrict their job searches to their closest metro area or at least stay within the same state/region; this is especially the case with Florida (population 20MM) where getting from South Florida (population 6MM) to the next metro area, Atlanta, is an 8 hour drive with no traffic.

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

#324

Post by specialist »

bastawhiz wrote: post #246
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.

> 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.

One challenge with "net neutrality" is everyone has their own working definition.

My bro is the head tech guy for a cable company. He opposes "net neutrality". For B2B reasons. For him, it's about interconnect fees and fairness. Something like they build the pipes and someone, let's say TikTok, hogs all the bandwidth without paying their fair share.

I have no idea if my bro's narrative makes any sense. My bro also believes The Flintstones is a documentary (creationist). So I usually just smile and nod along when he starts to rant about something.

Whereas my understanding is closer to what you've stated; net neutrality is a B2C policy issue.

Whatever the case, my bro and myself, with our very different understandings and priorities, have no overlap in our positions.

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

#325

Post by sangnoir »

andrew_ wrote: post #214
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…

Does the bill in fact restrict anyone from saying the word "gay"? If not, continuing to use the misnomer is spreading misinformation.

> If not, continuing to use the misnomer is spreading misinformation.

Just like the reframing of "woke" and "critical race theory" are misinformation - right? Right?

I have accepted that reframing language is now a legitimate political tool, and from my PoV, the right has been doing it a lot, such as labelling any milquetoast protest by groups nominally on the left an "insurrection" after 1/6. I believe it's a deliberate attack akin to semantic satiation to render a word meaningless, the conservative operative bluntly admitted (on Twitter!) to successful rebranding "woke". That egg will not be unscrambled.

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

#326

Post by _-david-_ »

scarface74 wrote: post #190
_-david-_ wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is a monopoly/duopoly on collocation centers? I was talking about Apple and Google removing the app from their app stores. I think they are back now, but it looks like it killed much of its steam. >According to the former CEO of AWS, only 5% of all IT spend is on any cloud provider. The other 95% self host This number sounds a bit weird. I assume you are saying cloud costs are only 5% of IT spending which mean…

Andy Jassy is my skip*10 manager the last time I checked. But there are always re-orgs. https://accelerationeconomy.com/cloud/amazon-shocker-ceo-jas... > With a $51B revenue run rate that’s growing 28% YoY (these were the Q4 2020 numbers we last publicly shared), it’s easy to forget that AWS is still in the very early stages of what’s possible. Less than 5% of the global IT spend is in the cloud at this point Why doe…

>Andy Jassy is my skip*10 manager the last time I checked. But there are always re-orgs.

You should reread the article. It is saying 5% of it spending is on cloud. That has nothing to do with the percentage of cloud vs self hosting.

It could be 5% of it spending but account for 100% of hosting.

>Why does Parlor need to be an app at all? They can just be a website

Because it makes it easier for people to interact with and can encourage engagement. There is a reason why every social media site has an app.

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

#327

Post by keyme »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #283
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…

>Do you really want corporates to decide what political views you should have access to? No, which is why no one is stopping you from typing in a URL in your browser and visiting a website. But a computer owner should be able to decide what goes on on their computer (even google or Facebook). The network that connects everyone is what should be regulated and forced to be “free” or “unrestricted”.

Right.. Are cloudflare CDN nodes "the network"? Or a computer?

Because they're "stopping me" already, as of late.

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

#328

Post by buscoquadnary »

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.

Yes yes yes continue to focus on the partisan differences, tear the world apart, the other side is evil because they have an R next to their name, the other side is (D)ifferent.

It's all the other bad side, not the same freaking loonies that keep everything status quo and pat each others backs.

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

#329

Post by chrismcb »

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…

This would be the opposite of freedom. The government has no business to be involved in companies

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

#330

Post by cronix »

wolfgang42 wrote: post #313
0xFEEDC0DE wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It prevents talking about sexuality with children (up to 3rd grade), whether it's gay, straight, trans, furries, whatever. To say it's about one specific thing when it's about the entire subject is misrepresenting the bill.
Post reply on HN