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

471–480 of 598 posts

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

#471

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

Including white lyching? "scholarly consensus" is that it was racism?

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

#472

Post by UncleMeat »

biglearner1day wrote: post #456
UncleMeat wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand that you have a rich imagination, please do not use it to justify censorship.

This is wholly independent of policy initiatives. The idea that books that discuss transition are morally equivalent to something like The Turner Diaries is worthy of derision.

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

#473

Post by foldr »

Chris2048 wrote: post #471
foldr wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Including white lyching? "scholarly consensus" is that it was racism?

>Including white lychings? "scholarly consensus" is that it was racism?

Actually yes, in many cases. 'White' in these stats often includes Jews, Italians and other groups who also suffered from discrimination based on their ethnicity. The category 'white' has not remained constant over the past 200 years. You can certainly find scholarly treatments of this point if you look on Google scholar.

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

#474

Post by foldr »

refurb wrote: post #469
foldr wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Say, the points made in the first few paragraphs of the relevant Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States Nothing controversial, just the normally accepted historical reality.

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

#475

Post by Chris2048 »

foldr wrote: post #473
Chris2048 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including white lyching? "scholarly consensus" is that it was racism?

>Including white lychings? "scholarly consensus" is that it was racism? Actually yes, in many cases. 'White' in these stats often includes Jews, Italians and other groups who also suffered from discrimination based on their ethnicity. The category 'white' has not remained constant over the past 200 years. You can certainly find scholarly treatments of this point if you look on Google scholar.

> You can certainly find scholarly treatments of this point if you look on Google scholar.

Have you done so to sources your own statements?

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

#476

Post by specialist »

orlp wrote: post #442
travisjungroth wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Thanks y'all. The "B2B anti net neutrality" (my phrase) position didn't make any sense to me. But what do I know?

I imagine lobbyists buffaloing your average elected representative. It's a compelling story. Even if it's untrue.

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

#477

Post by foldr »

Chris2048 wrote: post #475
foldr wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Including white lychings? "scholarly consensus" is that it was racism? Actually yes, in many cases. 'White' in these stats often includes Jews, Italians and other groups who also suffered from discrimination based on their ethnicity. The category 'white' has not remained constant over the past 200 years. You can certainly find scholarly treatments of this point if you look on Google scholar.

> You can certainly find scholarly treatments of this point if you look on Google scholar. Have you done so to sources your own statements?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-histo...

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

#478

Post by pclmulqdq »

scarface74 wrote: post #279
pclmulqdq wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the surrounding city, this is a group of "concerned citizens" in the surrounding city - which is a big difference. The citizens of that city will likely be hurt by this, since it may cause a drop in tourist revenue and employment from Disney.

Yes I’m sure other people in the city really want to take on Disney’s debt and want to take responsibility for zoning, police, fire, etc for Disney?

The "concerned citizens" likely don't want Disney being adversely affected because it affects their business. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the debt or the responsibility for zoning, etc. The debt is how they are arguing that the government has the same interest as them (and in particular, that there is something illicit going on). By ignoring the potential benefits and pointing out the potential harms, they are trying to get what they want. There would be a huge difference if the city itself were suing, which would indicate that there is actually a problem with the economics of this.

If you've ever interacted with local municipal governments in the US, you would know that most municipal government employees would love to take responsibility for the zoning, police, fire, and tax collection at Disney. They would squeeze it for all they can - and they probably will. The concerned citizens (and Disney, who is likely funding their legal case) do not want this squeezing to take place.

Make no mistake, that town is only operating at a loss because Disney's accountants are writing its books. They are shifting income to the corporation and losses to the city, so they can take advantage of favorable financing terms available on muni bonds for those losses. If someone adversarial to Disney were to take over the town, the revenue/cost situation would be very different since the two would no longer be working together to shift profits and losses around. We are about to see how different it will be.

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

#479

Post by Izkata »

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.

No, that's just what the media wants you to think by calling it the "don't say gay" bill. In truth, both of those are equally allowed.

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

#480

Post by biglearner1day »

scarface74 wrote: post #470
biglearner1day wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I think that the last sentence already answered all the questions you just asked.

"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."

> Would you want that same government to force HN to allow political topics?

If we were talking politics and Dang would censor anyone because of their ideology, yes, the government should set laws in place against that.

> Would it apply to religious organizations that set up a social media platform?

No.

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

Yes, stop misinterpreting it, I had expanded on it in the same sentence.

> The state pushing this is the same state that tried to force companies not to speak about diversity

You mean the same law that "prohibits teaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others"? The same law that prevents schools and business from reducing a person to just their race to assign labels of privileges regardless of all the nuances that make up an individual?

Good, stop justifying prejudice.

Post reply on HN