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

381–390 of 598 posts

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

#381

Post by DiggyJohnson »

hedora wrote: post #368
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.

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

How do you reason that whatsoever? Proper bathroom conduct in K-3 has nothing to do with sexual or gender discourse.

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

#382

Post by edgyquant »

scarface74 wrote: post #104
pessimizer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation. Because political censorship is the worst censorship (you might argue that all censorship is political.) It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship. If the powerful are censoring the political process, there are no means to make any of the powerful less powerful. It becomes self-perpetuating.

There is absolutely nothing stopping conservatives from establishing their own social media platform. Conservatives love “the free market” as long as it is working for them. Whose fault is it that Truth Social is an abysmal failure?

I’m a liberal but we’re reaching a point where this argument isn’t exactly truthful

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

#383

Post by gnaritas99 »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#384

Post by DiggyJohnson »

vkou wrote: post #372
treeman79 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would a teacher discuss their personal life with K-3 students? Asking about a teacher’s marriage was obviously out of place in my experience, and for good reason. It’s not a topic for the classroom.

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

#385

Post by MertsA »

smaryjerry wrote: post #87
pfisch wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this even work on Reddit? Currently user moderators control all the user made subreddits. If Reddit now has legal liability does Reddit need to moderate All subreddits by themselves? That sounds impossible.

That’s partially true. Reddit assigns moderators to your subreddit as well and if you don’t moderate in a way they like will force you to remove certain moderators or even ban your community.

Reddit has always touted free speech, until it hits the news and then suddenly the subreddit they couldn't be bothered to deal with is banned.

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

#386

Post by tsimionescu »

hcurtiss wrote: post #376
tsimionescu wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here, in paragraph 3 of the law itself[0]:

> Classroom instruction by school personnel or thirdparties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or [...]

The common interpretation is that telling children that some like boys or girls like girls and some like boys is "instruction on sexual orientation".

[0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...

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

#387

Post by gnaritas99 »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#388

Post by tsimionescu »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #380
tsimionescu wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say anything about the kindergarten teacher's spouse - the simple fact I was mentioning is something kids can obviously see on their own around them, and may well ask their teachers about.

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

#389

Post by snovv_crash »

midoridensha wrote: post #265
AlphaSite wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extreme left and right are both fairly problematic, although for different reasons and to different degrees.

Well when comparing Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, I don't really see any significant degree of difference... If you're talking about what modern Americans consider "left" and "right", though, I'd agree, but what Americans consider "left" generally isn't very far left, and it depends on who you ask: talk to an internationally-minded American and they'll say the Democratic party is centrist at best, or center-right. Talk to…

On economic issues and welfare, sure. But when it comes to gender activism the US left is way further over than the rest of the world, to the point that they've alienated a large part of their original support base.

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

#390

Post by skywal_l »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #378
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

In this article, one can read about the parent's quote:

> is often credited to Francis M. Wilhoit, who died in 2010, it was actually written in 2018 by a different Frank Wilhoit, a composer.[10]

:)

And in this article: https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservative...

> But in fact it’s the work of another Frank Wilhoit, this one not a professional scholar of American politics but a 63-year-old classical music composer in Ohio, who wrote the adage as part of a longer point in the comments section of the political science blog Crooked Timber [0].

[0]: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...

Post reply on HN