Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by danaris » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:42 PM UTC

blast wrote: post #100

klyrs wrote: post #53

Meanwhile, Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions. This is not about a principled approach to free speech. It's about protecting the right to enforce religious-inspired bigotry, tearing down the separation of church and state even as that bigotry becomes "unpopular."

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 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 is a way to get there: it's changing our voting method.

Single-choice, first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting is effectively guaranteed to result in a two-party system.

There are a number of alternative voting systems, and all of them that I've heard of have flaws, but Ranked Choice Voting is one of the better ones, and seems to be gaining some traction recently in a few places.

If you really want to break our political duopoly, push for Ranked Choice Voting at every level you have influence over. It'll be easier the more local you get, and the more jurisdictions adopt it, the easier it will be to get others to do the same.

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

#502

Post by biglearner1day » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:51 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #491

biglearner1day wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it amusing you continue with the Cathy Newman reenactment. >So the government should pass laws that tell private companies what they can’t talk about. Yes, they should not allow private companies to spew and enforce systems of prejudices. > But the government should also pass laws that force companies to publish every other opinion? Yes, that's the free speech part, you know. > Isn’t that the government now co…

So you’re in favor of the government controlling political speech that you don’t agree with? Nowhere in the DI&E training I’ve taken at the country’s second largest employer do they claim one group is inherently prejudice. We are all inherently prejudice based on our own lived experiences. White people in metro areas are often prejudiced against “rural America”. Lighter skinned Black or often prejudiced against darke…

> So you’re in favor of the government controlling political speech that you don’t agree with? Where did I say or imply any of that?

>Nowhere in the DI&E training I’ve taken at the country’s second largest employer do they claim one group is inherently prejudice.

Good, so that law you were so much against wouldn't affect you.

> We are all inherently prejudice based on our own lived experiences.

So that is your excuse to justify systematic prejudice? That is the same line of thinking racists use to justify their disgusting behavior.

> White people in metro areas are often prejudiced against “rural America”. Lighter skinned Black or often prejudiced against darker skin Black people. There have been reports that Indians are still practicing the caste system in hiring. Second and third generation Americans of the same race talk about people from their own country who are “fresh off the boat”.

What are you implying? That we shouldn't hire based on merit, but perceived race or prejudice? Your argument is all over the place, make a point.

> But either way, seeing that you don’t see a problem with the government controlling speech that you disagree with is the very reason that the government shouldn’t have that power.

No, that is not what you are seeing, but what you want to see. Feel free to re-read the entire thread because you seem to come to conclusions of your own.

I've repeated countless times that the problem is prejudice, not free speech. You're willingly ignoring what is said and make up conclusions for yourself.

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

#503

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:59 PM UTC

biglearner1day wrote: post #502

scarface74 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re in favor of the government controlling political speech that you don’t agree with? Nowhere in the DI&E training I’ve taken at the country’s second largest employer do they claim one group is inherently prejudice. We are all inherently prejudice based on our own lived experiences. White people in metro areas are often prejudiced against “rural America”. Lighter skinned Black or often prejudiced against darke…

> So you’re in favor of the government controlling political speech that you don’t agree with? Where did I say or imply any of that? >Nowhere in the DI&E training I’ve taken at the country’s second largest employer do they claim one group is inherently prejudice. Good, so that law you were so much against wouldn't affect you. > We are all inherently prejudice based on our own lived experiences. So that is your excuse…

DI&E training is not about “hiring based on race”. It’s about just the opposite. Treating people differently based on race because we all have implicit biases. Some of us are just intelligent enough to recognize it in ourselves and not allow it to affect our actions.

But the law is not about hiring. The law is about what companies are allowed to include in their training and the government was trying to decide what could and could not be said by private corporations.

The government wanted to in fact control speech - not hiring decisions.

Are you okay with the government controlling what private companies can say during their training?

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

#504

Post by bastawhiz » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 2:09 PM UTC

TeeMassive wrote: post #492

bastawhiz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Net neutrality was about bandwith, not content This is not true. Net neutrality is about service providers not getting to choose which services you connect with. If your ISP decided you can use Hulu but have to pay $10/mo extra for Netflix, that's a net neutrality issue. It's not about the volume of bytes. It's about who the bytes are coming from and going to, which is a content issue.

So not about content then. And who you connect to is part of bandwidth and how it is distributed.

Hulu and Netflix use an arguably identical amount of bandwidth for each user, and how and where that data is routed is essentially moot. It's not about the bandwidth, it's about what's in those bytes: the only practical difference is whose content the bytes encode.

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

#505

Post by refurb » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #474

refurb wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK, that doesn't seem to run counter to the grandparents comments?

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

#506

Post by _-david-_ » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #454

_-david-_ wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Andy Jassy is my skip*10 manager the last time I checked. But there are always re-orgs. You should reread the article. It is saying 5% of it spending is on cloud. That has nothing to do with the percentage of cloud vs self hosting. It could be 5% of it spending but account for 100% of hosting. >Why does Parlor need to be an app at all? They can just be a website Because it makes it easier for people to interact with…

I work at AWS in Professional Services where we are pushed to go after the other 95%. I watch the ReInvent videos. He is very much talking about growing by going after the other 95%. I know first hand how many large enterprises and state and local government institutions are self hosted. In context, he is obviously talking about AWS’s growth potential by going after a large untapped market. As far as “needing an app”…

>I work at AWS in Professional Services where we are pushed to go after the other 95%.

It wasn't stated in the article that 95% of hosting is self hosted. I would appreciate some article or something that actually makes that claim.

>I watch the ReInvent videos. He is very much talking about growing by going after the other 95%.

I haven't watch those videos, but if it just reiterates the article then it won't prove your point. 5% of costs has nothing to do with market share.

Continuing to say 5% is useless when it almost certainly doesn't mean what you are claiming.

>I know first hand how many large enterprises and state and local government institutions are self hosted

Has nothing to do with the percentage of hosting.

>As far as “needing an app”. Do you really think the same people who will show up by the thousands to watch Trump and go through the trouble of invading the Capital won’t go out of their way to go to a website and post their opinions?

A growing number of people don't even have a computer. They only have a phone. It is difficult to deal with many sites on phones. Not sure how good Parler is, but they are frequently a subpar experience like notifications not even working most of the time.

I'd you want engagement you need an app. Its as simple as that. That is why every social media has its own app instead of directing people to their websites.

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

#507

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 2:36 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #495

scarface74 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to any article where the local government is salivating over wanting to take over Disney? How does it possibly help the surrounding city? There is a huge movement in the metro Atlanta area to either break off from the larger city or to incorporate county areas so they can have more local control. There is no movement to take over larger responsibilities by the taxpayers.

Most people don't "salivate" publicly. However, they don't seem to mind, and there is no plan to raise taxes on the residents in connection: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20... This is a biased source (a little too right-leaning for my taste), but it has a few interesting quotes from public officials: https://deadline.com/2022/05/disney-ron-desantis-dont-say-ga... It helps because Disney i…

The only mention of it not raising taxes for residence came from DeSantis without anything to back it up.

This isn’t something I’m just hearing about from the national news. I bought a second home/investment property in Orange County that will become my legal residence once my wife and I start doing the digital nomad thing later this year.

People locally do not want this. No Republican or Democratic governor has ever complained about Disney’s special tax district until DeSantis brought it up specifically because Disney spoke up. DeSantis is not interested in “protecting free speech”.

Does this sound like anything but retribution:

“You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re going to martial your economic might to attack the parents of my state? We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that,” DeSantis said during an event at a Hialeah Gardens charter school.

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

#508

Post by magicalist » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 2:44 PM UTC

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 trivially true though? If you had a functioning justice system, the lynchers would be arrested and it wouldn't happen again.

That is explicitly not what the GGP argued. They were very clear, and it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest otherwise. You can make your own argument but don't misrepresent others'.

> 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.

"I want to beat someone, hang them from a tree, and then have a picnic around their mutilated body" is not something that needs to be both-sides-ed as someone's personal beliefs on justice.

I don't know if this is the typical HN thing of "I know a few details, I can figure out the rest from first principles" but there's an incredibly large amount of historical evidence of people who very plainly stated their motivations that you need to reckon with before you can make claims like these. Like, it's not reasonable to claim the KKK was primarily an activist group primarily motivated by the need for criminal reform.

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

#509

Post by Consultant32452 » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #445

Consultant32452 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Your approval is of no value and your disdain is of no concern. If it helps you to create a fantasy in your mind of what my concerns might be, you are free to do so.

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

#510

Post by Consultant32452 » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 2:50 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #438

Consultant32452 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And when I was in first grade my teacher got married, showed us pictures of the wedding, and changed her last name.

Teachers are service providers. They should have no deeper emotional bond with their students than the cashier at McDonald's has with their regular customers. Students are not friends. While the isolated story of your teacher sharing her wedding pictures is not a big ordeal, it shows an underlying problem of poor boundaries. We have a pervasive problem, at least in the US, of teacher with poor mental health and poor boundaries trying to be friends and pseudo-parents to their students.