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

441–450 of 598 posts

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

#441

Post by bryanrasmussen »

DuskStar wrote: post #416
magicalist wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. Jesus Christ I thought this thread was bad but then we get to this post.

It's trivially true though? If you had a functioning justice system, the lynchers would be arrested and it wouldn't happen again. It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.

>It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.

Given the way that lynchings seemed to function in some parts of the U.S based on documentary photographs and such that probably some people would like to make illegal, it could just as well be argued that lynchings happened because the country did not have effective mass entertainment.

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

#442

Post by orlp »

travisjungroth wrote: post #362
specialist wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pas…

It's all smoke and mirrors. The real problem is that ISPs sell the very same thing to multiple people for full price, and when things break because multiple people want to use the thing they paid for at the same time they blame you for taking more than your 'fair share'.

That is the disconnect. In their mind you are 'sharing' with all the other people that bought the same thing, whereas you believe you were the only one that bought what they said they would sell you, like any other purchase works.

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

#443

Post by UncleMeat »

biglearner1day wrote: post #413
mattigames wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I hope that if someone writes a book saying people should physically harm you One could argue that calls for gender-affirming surgeries or treatments are equally, if not, worse. These topics are especially prevalent in the LGBTQ community, as I have found from my experience. Nevertheless, we seem to encourage this kind of behavior whereas we. It is important to be aware of which ideas you are rejecting, especially…

No one couldn’t. I’m sorry, but this is garbage. Harm is a thing. Transphobia is transphobia.

I’m sure that racist whites thought that MLK was agitating for “equally bad, if not worse” things than Governor Faubus but they were just wrong.

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

#444

Post by UncleMeat »

intimidated wrote: post #375
favorited wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

No post body was provided.

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

#445

Post by michaelmrose »

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.

When I was in kindergarten I knew people you saw in other contexts like school were people like your family who had names and families like your family. I have no idea how one could possibly reach that age and not know that. Extending that with the idea that people's families come in all sizes and combination with some having 2 men or two women seems entirely age appropriate.

In the broader context this topic would be dull as dishwater and boring as toilet training if a certain type didn't make it interesting if only as a measure of their obsession with sex and other people's mere existence transgressing on useless norms that they somehow assume are vital to our society.

Outside of your fantasies teachers aren't violating your kids boundaries by having a same sex partner or a last name nor yet by telling them some households have two mommies or two daddies. What you are actually concerned about is constant exposure to reality may lead your kid to believe that its normal and acceptable for a man to love another man or a woman another woman which is ok because a substantial minority are gay and it is indeed ok for them to love whom they love.

Instead you'd rather in your words "destroy public schooling" one of the most obvious wins of the modern era to avoid... your kid learning about... adam and steve.

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

#446

Post by hackerlight »

AlphaSite wrote: post #260
midoridensha wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've seen tons of recent support for censorship from ideas and speech the (left? I wouldn't consider it actually left) doesn't like. The left has always been pro-censorship: Stalin and Mao, for instance, set up societies with lots of censorship. The right is also pro-censorship: think Hitler, or any religious conservatives for that matter.

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

To different degrees? I'm not sure about that...

The right is significantly more dangerous now, but I don't see that as a historically universal truth.

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

#447

Post by a-user-you-like »

weakfish wrote: post #137
a-user-you-like wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

What book is encouraging that? Or are you using hyperbole to try and make your point sound more scary?

Any book that confuses a kid on gender, what moral monster would do that

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

#448

Post by scarface74 »

biglearner1day wrote: post #415
scarface74 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that there was just another story on HN where the government pushed BigTech to censor information around Covid? This is the same government you want to give more power? Do you really think that the in power government won’t push corporations to keep them in power? It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power.

> It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power. It amazes me that we let social media platforms run freely with whichever narrative, ideology they enforce. Government influence has in most cases a negative outcome, but letting these platforms, especially ones at the scale of Twitter and Facebook, act freely is unwise.

So instead we give government more power to control the narrative? Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative.

Would you also want the government to control RedState? FoxNews? Truth Socisl?

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

#449

Post by a-user-you-like »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #361
1270018080 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course the law should dictate who you sleep with. In the 13 colonies adultery was rightly a capital crime.

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

#450

Post by scarface74 »

RobotToaster wrote: post #433
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?

While I'm sure Florida's motivation was entirely reactionary, the fact that disney has self proclaimed "leftists" defending a literal company town shows how great their propaganda is.

We could say the same about any small town local government in the Bible Belt. Not to mention all of the people running for office who said the election was stolen or Florida that literally passed a law called “the Stop Woke Act” that forbids companies from teaching DI&E. Do you want the government to control the propaganda?
Post reply on HN