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

461–470 of 598 posts

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

#461

Post by lotsofpulp »

intimidated wrote: post #373
lotsofpulp wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

If the intent is to say a business should not be able ban a protected class per the Civil rights Act, my comment was intended to be interpreted within the context of businesses banning non protected classes.

The discussion would then be about if we legally protect members of tribe with certain gender, skin color, cultural affiliation, etc, why would we not protect a tribe of certain political views, that is an interesting question that I am not sure how to delineate.

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

#462

Post by parkingrift »

klyrs wrote: post #274
parkingrift wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

But kindergarten classes talk about families. And many families have zero, one or two moms; zero, one or two dads. I'm one of two moms and other kids started asking questions about that when our kid was in kindergarten. The Florida law is meant to make kids like mine feel othered and isolated. It isn't about protecting innocence, it's about punishing deviance.

No one is prohibited from having those discussions in an age appropriate manner.

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

#463

Post by scarface74 »

biglearner1day wrote: post #459
scarface74 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was not disagreeing with you in the initial reply, two things can be true at the same time. Like I said; government influence has a negative outcome in most cases, but allowing social media platforms to do as they wish is a recipe for disaster if we're not there already. > Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative I'm sure the ideological left appreciates the social media platform's bias towar…

So no matter how bad you believe private corporations are at controlling the narrative. Do you think having government control is better?

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

#464

Post by parkingrift »

kadoban wrote: post #222
parkingrift wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> The media-dubbed “don’t say gay” bill forbids kindergarten to second grade teachers from discussing sexual orientation or sexual identity. Oh, the humanity. And if that's _all_ it said you'd be exactly right. What's the rest of the text?

Don’t talk about sexual topics in a manner that is not age appropriate?

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

#465

Post by scarface74 »

trafficante wrote: post #351
seadan83 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this. The 1st amendment protects free speech from the government. If you're in a bar, and they don't like what you're saying, they can ask you to leave. Then it all boils down to whether things like Twitter and Facebook are akin to the public square, a public street. That is hard to fathom given you are using their servers, their software, which they pay for and provide as a service (in something of a quid-pro-q…

This argument, much like the “just make your own x” meme, is one of the many hypotheticals that actually saw real world testing in the past two years. These days, the ”private company so this isn’t 1A” argument oddly reminds me of the omnipresent 200x-era GOP claim that running a federal budget is akin to balancing a household checkbook. Designed to be convincingly simple to state and yet extremely obnoxious to refut…

Is the answer giving government more power?

Conservatives love “the free market” and “small government” when it suits them. These are the same politicians who are opposed to net neutrality. It’s much easier to create an alternative social media platform than create an alternative ISP.

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

#466

Post by parkingrift »

thatnerdyguy wrote: post #249
parkingrift wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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, and yes. It doesn’t prohibit natural classroom discussion at those younger ages. It doesn’t prohibit classroom instruction at all if it’s age appropriate.

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

#467

Post by uup »

patmcc wrote: post #371
uup wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

These were my exact words:

> 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.

I specifically said individual donations to political campaigns were limited. I think you’re arguing a very pedantic point that I didn’t even make rather than talking about whether or not our society would be better off limiting all forms of political spending.

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

#468

Post by biglearner1day »

scarface74 wrote: post #463
biglearner1day wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not disagreeing with you in the initial reply, two things can be true at the same time. Like I said; government influence has a negative outcome in most cases, but allowing social media platforms to do as they wish is a recipe for disaster if we're not there already. > Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative I'm sure the ideological left appreciates the social media platform's bias towar…

So no matter how bad you believe private corporations are at controlling the narrative. Do you think having government control is better?

Please don't pull a Cathy Newman.

Like I said, for the third time: government influence has a negative outcome in most cases. I'm not sure how you got to a different conclusion.

The government should keep social media platforms in check and protect their citizens against censorship (in any form, as long as it is lawful) on large, influential platforms.

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

#469

Post by refurb »

foldr wrote: post #430
Chris2048 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the blindingly obvious element of racism involved in lynching Except the context is the high number of white lynching's that also occurred.

If someone wants to argue against the scholarly consensus regarding the role of racism in lynchings in America, I'm happy for them to do so if they do it properly. That is, if they take on the best existing scholarship on the subject and give references to support their arguments. The OP's comment simply asserts that the existing consensus is wrong. I see no reason to take such an assertion seriously, or even to deba…

What consensus? Im not even sure what your arguing is true or not true.

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

#470

Post by scarface74 »

biglearner1day wrote: post #468
scarface74 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no matter how bad you believe private corporations are at controlling the narrative. Do you think having government control is better?

Please don't pull a Cathy Newman. Like I said, for the third time: government influence has a negative outcome in most cases. I'm not sure how you got to a different conclusion. The government should keep social media platforms in check and protect their citizens against censorship (in any form, as long as it is lawful) on large, influential platforms.

So in fact, you do want the same government to “keep social media in check” that in another story that was on the front page was the government encouraging social media to censor speech? Would you want that same government to force HN to allow political topics? Would it apply to religious organizations that set up a social media platform?

You said yourself it would be a “negative outcome”.

The state pushing this is the same state that tried to force companies not to speak about diversity. They literally named a law “Stop Woke”.

Post reply on HN