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

371–380 of 598 posts

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

#371

Post by patmcc »

uup wrote: post #343
patmcc wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 amoun…

I didn’t say that a group of people should have different rights than individuals. I think we should view elections as a central component of our democracy. Allowing entities, either corporations or individuals, to spend exorbitant amounts of money undermines the very principle of democracy by making the votes of a wealthy few worth more than everyone else. “Vote” here being a figurative reference to electoral influe…

Your claim was literally that corporations can spend unlimited amounts and people can't, which is simply untrue.

What's an exorbitant amount? Imagine some people, passionate about their particular political issue, pooling their money together to put up billboards, run radio ads, get a few TV spots, have a spread in the newspaper, buy some instagram ads, whatever. That's speech! Of course it is! Having the government restrict is a terrible precedent. The ability to try and influence other people, to convince them that your position or your candidate is the right one, is also a principle of democracy.

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

#372

Post by vkou »

treeman79 wrote: post #369
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?

So you support teaching highly sexual content in Kindergarten? Because that’s what the law was about.

A teacher mentioning about their same-sex spouse runs afoul of this law, but one mentioning their opposite-sex one does not.

Which is, of course, because there are two sexualities - straight, and political.

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

#373

Post by intimidated »

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”.

> But a computer owner should be able to decide what goes on on their computer (even google or Facebook).

How do you feel about the Civil Rights Act?

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

#374

Post by patmcc »

fwip wrote: post #352
patmcc wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 amoun…

Because corporations have funds disproportionate to the people, and because corporate donations are overwhelmingly controlled by the kind of people who run corporations.

They have the money anyway though? Of course the rich will have a dispropriate amount of power, that's what money does. It's not because of "corporations" or super PACs or whatever. Show me a system where a rich man doesn't have more power and influence than a poor man.

When you ban or limit groups of people, like corporations or unions or co-ops, from spending on elections, you give more power to those rich individuals, not less.

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

#375

Post by intimidated »

favorited wrote: post #225
tomcam wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions. For example?

"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-...

Countless districts have a de-facto ban on fascist books—and all of their books about racial politics likely lean the same ideological direction.

I don't see how this is any different.

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

#376

Post by hcurtiss »

tsimionescu wrote: post #366
parkingrift wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe you can point me to where it says that.

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

#377

Post by aaronbrethorst »

wahern wrote: post #341
zrail wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident" Lynchings are never this circumspect.

In retrospect, no. But reality was never so clear cut, especially contemporaneously. Lynchings of whites wasn't uncommon. The so-called "last lynching in California" was of two white murder suspects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmo... The application of lynchings were, however, disproportionate, and this must have at least been apparent to anyone who cared to consider the question. Accord…

Those numbers don't take into account the percentage of the total US population that was Black and white from 1883-1941. In 1880 and 1940, respectively, 13.1% and 9.8% of people in the United States were identified as Black. The Wikipedia article below only offers the white population number for 1940, but that is reported as being 88.4% of the US population.

Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...

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

#378

Post by aaronbrethorst »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #195
jrm4 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but seriously, they're doing this stuff in such a sloppy way that I'd definitely be looking for opportunity, e.g. the wording of one of their anti-CRT things essentially said "no one can make someone else uncomfortable about race" and I'm like "word? I can work with that."

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit

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

#379

Post by Consultant32452 »

autoexec wrote: post #344
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."

That sounds perfectly reasonable as long as the bill goes on to explicitly define in law exactly what is and is not age/developmentally appropriate. I'm going to guess that it does not and that the true point of the law is to criminalize something poorly defined so that it can be used to selectively attack anyone who covers those subjects no matter how they do it.

No post body was provided.

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

#380

Post by Consultant32452 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #363
cronix wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 worl…

When I was in kindergarten I didn't even know my teachers had first names, much less spouses. A kindergartener is not your friend to share your life with. People have terrible boundaries. This is why public schooling must be destroyed.
Post reply on HN