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

331–340 of 598 posts

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

#331

Post by _skel »

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.

What Florida is asking for is not different than what many on the left have been asking for. The motivation is different, but the powers they want are the same.

People on the left need to remember that if they give the government more power to regulate speech online, whether it is to fight disinformation or hate speech or whatever else, the right wing will have the same power the next time they win office. It's so short sighted.

Unless you want our society to vacillate between left-wing censorship and right-wing censorship every time power changes hands, you should oppose giving any more censorship powers to governments.

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

#332

Post by bavell »

munk-a wrote: post #306
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?

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.

It says "classroom instruction", so wouldn't it also be okay if it was just the teacher and student in a one-on-one discussion? Since that wouldn't be instructing a class.

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

#333

Post by edgyquant »

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…

Maybe but I think it’s the right direction. These are not apps they are communications protocols owned by rent seekers

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

#334

Post by lotsofpulp »

keyme wrote: post #327
lotsofpulp wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Are the website owners asking Cloudflare to stop you?

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

#335

Post by DangitBobby »

bavell wrote: post #332
munk-a wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It says "classroom instruction", so wouldn't it also be okay if it was just the teacher and student in a one-on-one discussion? Since that wouldn't be instructing a class.

I'm gonna guess that wouldn't go you the teacher's way if someone wanted to call them on it.

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

#336

Post by hall0ween »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #328
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.

To me, you’re missing the point of the comment. OP points a group of people’s actions, not their affiliation. Well unless their affiliation forces them to do particular actions.

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

#337

Post by brobinson »

buildbot wrote: post #51

I’ll ask the same question I asked on the other threads to all those cheering this - do you think HN will be the same without moderation? Or just another 4chan? Will r/conservative stop banning users who dare suggest trump was maybe not such a good person, even if they are otherwise extremely conservative?

Why do people associate 4chan with not having moderation? It's always had moderators ("jannies"), and they are a common target of disdain.

/g/ is far more entertaining than HN.

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

#338

Post by patmcc »

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…

>>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.

Corporations cannot donate to (federal) political campaigns, period. See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...

Now, both individuals and corporations can donate to Super PACs an unlimited amount, yes. But corporations have no different limits than individuals. The whole point of so-called Super PACs is they're theoretically "Independent-expenditure-only political committees" and can't coordinate with candidates. Basically the "We have strong views about abortion" Super PAC can collect as much money as they want from anyone they want* and run as many ads as they want telling people which candidates share their view on abortion and which are monsters.

You may view this as vile and bad, and that's fair, but why should a group of people spending their money together (i.e. a corporation or union or whatever) have fewer rights than an individual spending their money alone?

*Foreign nationals maybe not included in this? Not sure.

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

#339

Post by chrismcb »

scarface74 wrote: post #296
favflam wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can't compare the two. They didn't run a campaign to win the popular vote. The outcome night have been different if they had

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

#340

Post by ajross »

_skel wrote: post #331
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.

What Florida is asking for is not different than what many on the left have been asking for. The motivation is different, but the powers they want are the same. People on the left need to remember that if they give the government more power to regulate speech online, whether it is to fight disinformation or hate speech or whatever else, the right wing will have the same power the next time they win office. It's so sh…

> many on the left have been asking [to] give the government more power to regulate speech online

No one on the left wants the government to do this. What happens is that "many on the left" tend to yell loudly about stuff to the extent that people in power feel they need to moderate their own speech and actions. Virtually no one on the left wants "the government" to do this.

The left, in fact, is extremely dependent on its ability to exercise free speech rights to make this happen. Everyone you want to cite who got "cancelled"? They got cancelled because someone else exercised their first amendment right to a hissy fit. Literally no one is trying to censor you. They're just shouting louder (and, to some extent, better and more convincingly).

Post reply on HN