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

361–370 of 598 posts

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

#361

Post by Dracophoenix »

1270018080 wrote: post #290
juve1996 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But there isn't an enlightened centrist middle ground here where we allow all speech off of principle. First off, because that has never happened in American history (or any country's history?). So there is no good ol days to look back on when speech was more free. Second of all, people are way too stupid to process information on their own. Governments are at their best when they are paternalistic, that's why we hav…

> Governments are at their best when they are paternalistic, that's why we have seatbelts, no lead in gasoline etc.

The same paternalism has justified poisoning one's own people in a "war" against alcohol, dictated who was allowed to have sex with whom in privacy of their own home, and resulted in human experimentation for the supposed betterment of society.

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

#362

Post by travisjungroth »

specialist wrote: post #324
bastawhiz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 be…

> let's say TikTok, hogs all the bandwidth without paying their fair share.

I’m biased in that I work at a company that uses a lot of bandwidth. My opinions are my own.

Companies like TikTok pay their fair share. They pay their provider to take their bytes. Their provider pays one of the “big pipe” companies and passes the bytes along. Then they pass it along and charge your bro’s company. Then your bro’s company passes it along and chargers the consumer. This is oversimplified, but it’s the general flow.

What your bro wants to do is skip the line. It’s not enough to charge consumers, he wants to charge the companies, or the consumers more depending on the company.

It’s like UPS opening up your package, seeing there are Nikes in there and wanting to charge either you or Nike extra. You’re already paying for delivery.

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

#363

Post by tsimionescu »

cronix wrote: post #330
wolfgang42 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why should it be more acceptable, exactly? This is not even about sexual education, it is literally illegal to explain to those kids that sometimes a man and a woman love each other, and sometimes two men or two women do the same. Of course, the first part will never be enforced, but the second and third clearly will.

There is no age at which it is inappropriate to listen about these extremely basic facts of the world.

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

#364

Post by tsimionescu »

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 sure that would easily be categorized as grooming.

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

#365

Post by shostack »

webmobdev wrote: post #250
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.

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…

If someone very visible is using social media as the delivery mechanism for a stochastic terrorism attack, or to organize and trigger an insurrection should they be allowed access to the tools that enable these things?

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

#366

Post by tsimionescu »

parkingrift wrote: post #220
scarface74 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same Florida that passed a law specifically to punish Disney because they spoke out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law and passed the “Stop Woke” act?

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes, oh the humanity. You're speaking as if the purpose of the bill is prohibiting teachers from explaining the best lube to use for anal sex, when in fact the purpose it to prohibit teachers from discussing the simple fact that some families have two dads or two moms (technically, the bill also prohibits teachers from discussing the fact that some families have one dad and one mom, but that is obviously never going to be enforced).

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

#367

Post by tsimionescu »

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

Let's parse that sentence carefully:

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] .

So no discussion about gender identity or sexual orientation (so don't discuss about families with two mommies) at all in primary grade levels. Then, for all (other) grade levels, no such discussion that is not age-appropriate.

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

#368

Post by hedora »

cronix wrote: post #330
wolfgang42 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, since talking about gender identity is also disallowed, I guess the little kids will just use whatever bathrooms they want?

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

#369

Post by treeman79 »

scarface74 wrote: post #121
munk-a wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The same Florida that passed a law specifically to punish Disney because they spoke out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law and passed the “Stop Woke” act?

So you support teaching highly sexual content in Kindergarten?

Because that’s what the law was about.

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

#370

Post by intimidated »

TeeMassive wrote: post #227
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.

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.

That's a keen insight about books. Thank you.
Post reply on HN