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

401–410 of 598 posts

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

#401

Post by mattigames »

nilespotter wrote: post #393
frob wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference between saying, "LGBT people are people," and "LBGT people should be shunned out of existence." Words have meanings.

I see, so we allow the ideas that you agree with, and ban the ones you don't. FREE SPEECH!

I hope that if someone writes a book saying people should physically harm you (yes, specifically you by name and picture) then you will not ask for that person to be put on jail -arguably the worst kind of ban possible- or say anything to stop that book from continuing being published, otherwise you would be an hypocrite for not really following your logic in which words should have no consequences for their authors.

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

#402

Post by webmobdev »

IX-103 wrote: post #284
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…

Even if we ignore the debate about whether a private enterprise should be forced to pay for speech they do not want, the bill is bad law. Who do they define as a candidate? If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? What requirements are there? Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Finally, what constitutes post-prioritization? If I search for something, then ideally posts r…

> Who do they define as a candidate?

A political candidate is one who is a member of a political party and is running for a public office or has already been elected to such offices in the past. (Yes, I am discounting independent candidates as they are a minor aberration that, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed in mature democracies). Whether the democratic system is presidential or parliamentary, political parties are one of the common institutions and base political units that are part of a democratic political system.

> If I'm running for student council would it apply to me?

No, since it is not a public office. This law is targeted to protect the free speech rights and political views of active politicians and elected representatives. For example, Twitter, under pressure from the current right-wing government of India deliberately tried to sabotage the social media outreach of an elected Member of Parliament and an opposition leader:

   “I want to bring your attention to what I believe is Twitter’s unwitting complicity in curbing free and fair speech in India,” Mr. Gandhi wrote in the letter to the Twitter chief executive, Parag Agrawal. “I have been reliably, albeit discreetly, informed by people at Twitter India that they are under immense pressure by the government to silence my voice.”
(Source: India’s Rahul Gandhi Says His Twitter Following Was Squashed by Modi Government - https://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-opposition-figure-rahul-... ).

The proposed laws can actually protect tech platforms from this kind of government pressure too, which should be welcomed by us.

> Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one.

Just like shouting "I declare bankruptcy" doesn't activate bankruptcy laws in your favour, "declaring" yourself a journalist doesn't make you a journalist in most countries.

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

#403

Post by pseingatl »

IX-103 wrote: post #284
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…

Even if we ignore the debate about whether a private enterprise should be forced to pay for speech they do not want, the bill is bad law. Who do they define as a candidate? If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? What requirements are there? Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Finally, what constitutes post-prioritization? If I search for something, then ideally posts r…

We already know that anyone with a blog is a journalist.

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

#404

Post by dillondoyle »

0xFEEDC0DE wrote: post #310
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?

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."

There are multiple problems with this, the biggest being defining 'appropriate.'

and by their definition that somehow topics around queer people & gender can be inappropriate; this is not sex education and no, nurses are not handing out hormones to pre-teens.

Many of these laws specifically enable people to sue teachers, governments, officials, women who had an abortion, etc.

That enables conservative & religious fanatics to have the last say and impose their moral worldviews onto the rest of us.

The fact that gay people exist is not 'appropriate' in many of their minds. Which is gross and sad. And therefore these laws give the vocal minority the power to force the rest of us back into the closet.

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

#405

Post by pstuart »

munk-a wrote: post #122
blast wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you about that, but I also (might) agree with them about this. Not that you said otherwise, but... I think we should go back to a transactional mix-and-match style of politics, with different coalitions per issue, instead of the "agree with your friend tribe and disagree with your enemy tribe about everything" style that we seem to be locked into these days. There shouldn't be any shame in being part of…

I am a one-issue voter (whenever it's on the ballot) and my issue is voting reform because, in my view, the two party system America (and almost Canada!) is stuck with is just making inter-party discussions on policies impossible. Once the political class has stratified like it has in America and can box out anyone who doesn't pass a litmus test of dozens of issues (Oh, you're pro-gun rights but also pro-abortion acc…

Campaign finance reform should be part of that. It's legalized bribery.

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

#406

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

erichocean wrote: post #392
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. Now do per-capita murder rates today, I think you'll find the same disparity. The fact is, lynching of whites and blacks (usually for murder) were inline with "likelihood to commit that crime" based on having virtually identical per-capita murder rates today. Lynchings occurr…

There are lynchings in large parts of the world, and yes the government is dysfunctional, but not as dysfunctional as a mob acting on relgious prejeducies. Take pakistani lynchings for halucinated sacrilege to the qroan or african lynchings. So comunity circulating word of mouth becomes "fact" and then murder.

Meaning the most crazy, shizophrenic person told tale in a comunity becomes the "law" base. Lynchings are a horror.

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

#407

Post by ben_w »

specialist wrote: post #320
IX-103 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we ignore the debate about whether a private enterprise should be forced to pay for speech they do not want, the bill is bad law. Who do they define as a candidate? If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? What requirements are there? Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Finally, what constitutes post-prioritization? If I search for something, then ideally posts r…

Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate. Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. I don't have the heart to respond to the rest of your objections.

> Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate

OK, but this can then be misused for other causes — for example, in the UK there is a deposit that general election candidates have to pay, which IIRC was introduced because too many people kept filing to be candidates because that was a way to get out of a legal obligation (draft, I think).

I expect the same here. Is anyone illegible to file for candidacy? Is this exactly the same dividing line you want between the tweeters and the tweet-nots?

(I am amused by the idea of Trump social media site being forced to host the literal Communist Party USA candidates, but that's a different matter).

> Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist.

This definition is so broad as to include me. Thanks, I guess, but I don't think I warrant that status.

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

#408

Post by cycomanic »

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.

> 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur ...

So technically you can't talk about a man loving a woman or a man loving a man, practically nobody is going to enforce the first case and only the second case will be enforced.

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

#409

Post by epakai »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #241
triceratops wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good? Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?

Do you believe the electric company should be able to choose not to provide you with electricity if you express an opinion with which the owners of that company disagree? That would be an example of the owners of the electric company asserting their property rights. Might there be situations where property rights need to be weighed against other considerations?

We have established norms for these situations. Utilities are one special case. Common carriers another.

Social media is neither of these. I don't rely on it to sustain my life, nor access government services.

If we're going to regulate social media it would be more akin to newspapers or broadcasting.

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

#410

Post by pstuart »

fzeroracer wrote: post #133
zdragnar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's struck me as weird about this is that I don't recall a single teacher ever mentioning their spouse, or their personal weekend plans. The idea that a teacher wants to talk to their students about their personal lives is utterly foreign to me. Maybe it's just a sign of times changing? Edit: this thought came to me in the context of a quote I saw from a teacher upset he couldn't talk about going surfing with his…

Did you never have a teacher you were friendly with or served as a mentor even outside of class? I grew up in poverty and if it wasn't for a couple teachers going above and beyond I probably would've never got the help I need to get free community college tuition. With cases like that, personal details end up discussed inadvertently because it's impossible to avoid. So-and-so's wife might be a teacher in the same dis…

Indeed. And there's a difference between on observation that something exists (e.g., their same sex spouse) vs discussing their "romantic relationship".

So they want to shut down any and all speech in that regard but force companies to publish speech that may not fall within their terms of service.

This is small government?

Post reply on HN