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

#561

Post by munk-a » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 4:56 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #547

UncleMeat wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this approach so sad. We've let the corporatization of everything build such huge walls between us as humans. Seeing every interaction as transactional and emotionless just feels like death to me.

Demoralizing public school teachers and making them feel like death sounds like a win to me. The best possible outcome is they all quit and the public schools shut down. Until then, squeeze them, deny them any concept of free speech, let them know they are not to be trusted. These are government agents who have laws compelling parents to put their children in their presence. Public schools are literal prisons for chi…

So are you advocating for religious schools?

Just to be clear - an informed electorate is sort of key for American Democracy so openly arguing against any form of education is a pretty clear argument against some really basic tenants of America.

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

#562

Post by jackson1442 » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 7:19 AM UTC

honkdaddy wrote: post #434

jackson1442 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was relatively common in school to discuss what happened over breaks, weekends, etc. to build conversation skills. Also, almost every k12 teacher I had would prepare a slideshow about themselves to present on the first day of class along with the syllabus. After all, you're spending a lot of time in that classroom as a k12 student. Many teachers also have pictures of their family on their desks, as one might in th…

> Also, almost every k12 teacher I had would prepare a slideshow about themselves to present on the first day of class along with the syllabus This is pretty different from coming to school and telling 7yos about the sex party you went to this weekend and which gender you were identifying as when you went. This is the reality some parents are trying to prevent when they say some American teachers are taking their fre…

> This is pretty different from coming to school and telling 7yos about the sex party you went to this weekend and which gender you were identifying as when you went.

When has this ever happened?

> What people have a problem with are the folks who derive their entire identity out of that, and then greatly encourage the kids they teach to do the same.

When has this ever happened?

> The very obvious comparison here is a teacher coming to school and telling their kids, in detail, about their sex life or multiple gender transition surgeries

When has this ever happened?

Straight people also have sex parties. Why are we legislating against LGBT people specifically?

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

#563

Post by honkdaddy » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 9:32 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #538

honkdaddy wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions I think the fact that you deliberately expressed what's been a complicated, and almost exclusively school-board driven, phenomenon in such a simple way shows you either haven't read much outside the headlines, or are just hoping to pull people to your side while discouraging them to do any actual research. Either way, your comment comes across as just as…

> If you don't like DeSantis and want him voted out, please just say that No, I want him voted out because of specific actions and I also want every politician inclined to take those specific actions voted out. I don't hate him because he's a Republican, I don't hate him because he's a straight white Christian man, I don't hate him because he's from Florida, I don't hate him . I hate the actions that he's performed (…

Thank you. Admitting your perspective on this topic is based in personal politics is ultimately a good thing, and makes for more better reading for other users.

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

#564

Post by honkdaddy » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 9:39 AM UTC

jackson1442 wrote: post #562

honkdaddy wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, almost every k12 teacher I had would prepare a slideshow about themselves to present on the first day of class along with the syllabus This is pretty different from coming to school and telling 7yos about the sex party you went to this weekend and which gender you were identifying as when you went. This is the reality some parents are trying to prevent when they say some American teachers are taking their fre…

> This is pretty different from coming to school and telling 7yos about the sex party you went to this weekend and which gender you were identifying as when you went. When has this ever happened? > What people have a problem with are the folks who derive their entire identity out of that, and then greatly encourage the kids they teach to do the same. When has this ever happened? > The very obvious comparison here is…

>When has this ever happened? >When has this ever happened? >When has this ever happened?

Were you expecting a news article? I'm not the 7yo in the classroom, these are just things I've heard from other parents while I've been spending time in FL. People are earnestly scared about what their kids are being taught in school and I think it's pretty cruel to abuse them instead of taking their concerns seriously.

Any of the examples I used are pretty obviously anecdotal, I'm surprised that wasn't clear to you. Not everything which has ever happened in this world has a Wikipedia article or video to link back to, some things just happen and then people tell others in their community, they don't necessarily run to write a blog post.

If you aren't living in FL right now I'm not sure how nuanced your perspective is going to be on the topic, but your opinions are always welcome, of course.

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

#565

Post by honkdaddy » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 9:44 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #552

honkdaddy wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, almost every k12 teacher I had would prepare a slideshow about themselves to present on the first day of class along with the syllabus This is pretty different from coming to school and telling 7yos about the sex party you went to this weekend and which gender you were identifying as when you went. This is the reality some parents are trying to prevent when they say some American teachers are taking their fre…

> This is pretty different from coming to school and telling 7yos about the sex party you went to this weekend and which gender you were identifying as when you went. That sounds extremely specific. Do you have a source? Because I tend to agree, if somebody told my kid shit like that I'd also want them fired too.

Are you expecting a news article? This is a story a mom at the dog park told me last week. How you feel about it is entirely your own choice and makes 0 difference to me, but asking for a source on what a teacher said in a 7yo's classroom is pretty funny I think. It's like asking for a source of your coworker making an inappropriate joke or a dog peeing on your lawn - do you operate under the framework that only things with internet sources actually happened?

If someone at the dog park told you a story, is your response to ask for a source and dismiss her when she tells you that one very obviously doesn't exist? Seems like a funny way to interact with people.

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

#566

Post by foldr » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 11:22 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #560

foldr wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m talking about this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32948728

Those two seem unrelated? You can have lynching of blacks as a method of control while also having lynching being extrajudicial punishment for whites?

I'm not sure how serious you're being at this point, but I'll try one more time. The original post clearly puts forward the hypothesis that lynching of black Americans was not driven by racism, and that lynching of 'whites' [*] and blacks occurred for the same underlying non-racially-related reason. The Wikipedia article states the generally accepted historical facts, which are incompatible with this hypothesis. Take e.g. the lynching of Emmett Till, and many other less famous instances along the same lines. It would be absurd to suggest that these events occurred due to a lack of adequate policing (unless you think that an adequate policing system is one that puts Black 14 year olds in jail for allegedly whistling at white women). That is why no-one who seriously studies the history of lynching makes this claim.

[*] As mentioned elsewhere in thread, it's not so simple to say who was or wasn't 'white' at various periods in America's history, and we shouldn't assume that lynchings of non-Black Americans were necessarily not motivated by racism or other neighboring prejudices.

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

#567

Post by rhn_mk1 » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 2:03 PM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #321

juve1996 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the problem today. Everyone says they want free speech. But deep down they don't. Some don't want gay marriage written in books, and some don't want anti-vaxxers to post misinformation. Those are 2 sides of the same coin. Freedom of speech is a critical cornerstone of liberal government. The fact that so many sides want to reduce this right is what is scary.

Very well said - and inspired me to chime in. We have much less freedom than we think, and the freedom we do have we pay a very high price for. I often use the phrase "What price freedom?" in conversations, and unfortunately most don't understand what it means.

What does it mean?

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

#568

Post by int_19h » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 2:12 PM UTC

hackerlight wrote: post #559

int_19h wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that "good federal governance" is outright impossible in a country where, at any given point, ~half of the population will hate whatever that government does. Now you can argue that it's not actually half, and so long as it's less than that, a functioning democracy would allow you to steamroll over them. However, once enough people in a democracy consider it illegitimate, it stops functioning really fas…

You don't avoid this by reducing federal scope and giving it to local. Say you achieve that goal, and then a populist gets in anyway. What happens then? Obviously they increase the scope, as all populists have done once they achieved power. The way you avoid this altogether is by creating good material conditions for people. One way you create good material conditions is by removing corrupt, vampiric local government…

The way you avoid this altogether is by having a decentralized structure of governance such that the compromise of one node doesn't bring the rest down. If you want some specific arrangement to criticize, let's start with this:

https://internationalistcommune.com/social-contract/

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

#569

Post by ajross » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

akomtu wrote: post #359

ajross wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many on the left have been asking [to] give the government more power to regulate speech online No one on the left wants the government to do this. What happens is that "many on the left" tend to yell loudly about stuff to the extent that people in power feel they need to moderate their own speech and actions. Virtually no one on the left wants "the government" to do this. The left, in fact, is extremely dependent…

WH went as far as creating a Disinformation Board. It got quickly labeled as Ministry of Truth, and the Board got disbanded shortly after, but the message was clear.

It wasn't the White House, it was DHS. If you meant "the executive branch" you should say that, calling it the WH makes it sound like this was an effort of the office of the President and not someone three tiers down. And it wasn't going to censor anything, as Homeland Security doesn't have any such authority, it was about counter-messaging. And no one but political enemies called it the "Ministry of Truth".

But indeed, the count-counter-messaging was too strong and it was shut down, because at the end of the day what amounts a PR organization isn't going to be very useful vs. the ammunition it can provide to people wanting to scream about censorship.

Hilariously that statement is a perfect example of the kind of disinformation and memery techniques that that (aborted) department was trying to refute.

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

#570

Post by smaryjerry » Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

ladyattis wrote: post #525

smaryjerry wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way yes, if that website reaches a certain size, say 100 million users or whatever point makes that service more important to businesses than even the phone company. There is blurring of the line between user and employee when many content creators make their entire living from their posts. They get paid by these companies to run ads on their content, so the comparison to an employee is actually a good one. Even…

You have so many assumptions in this comment but I will sum up my response as best as I can. First, websites are websites. It doesn't matter if it's Facebook or your own personal blog, they're functionally identical in terms of features. They both have a means to communicate with other visitors and they're nominally accessible to the public at large with one being more popular than the other. Meaning that you're sayi…

I made none of those points so I’m not sure where this is all coming from. I understand you want to take your arguments with others and bring them to me but that’s not at all what I’m saying. It seems you are making assumptions that I have these assumptions.