Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 164 posts

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#101

Post by mikeash »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #86
User23 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happen to agree with you, but it’s not our opinion that determines the law, it’s the Supreme Court’s. And they have clearly and consistently held that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment, for the lifetime of the Republic.

They also held that slavery was fine, until it wasn't. We have major problems in this country and the failures of our legal system are prime among them.

Slavery was fine under the law. Once the Constitution was amended to prohibit it, the Court had no problem upholding that.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#102

Post by EpicEng »

crazynick4 wrote: post #93
handelaar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#notallrussians is an argument (like #notallmen) that contributes nothing to anyone because nobody has at any point said "literally all Russians". You're bringing nothing but noise.

You don't have to say it explicitly in order to carry the connotation across.

Except no one actually believes it's "all Russians". Everyone knows "the Russians" means "the Russian government". So yeah, just noise.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#103

Post by tasty_freeze »

dominotw wrote: post #54
gammateam wrote: post #41

Read until > Democratic Senator Anything coming from the party without power is dead in the water for now. Maybe it will inspire someone but this is just a waste of a cycle until then.

There is only one party. Corporate party.

Both parties have their problems, but you are being simple minded to think there is no difference between the parties.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#104

Post by paulddraper »

dragonwriter wrote: post #65
maxxxxx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First stop blaming the Russians and then tell your parties to work for the country and for themselves. I think best would be if people stopped calling themselves "Republicans" or "Democrats" and stopped identifying with a party.

> First stop blaming the Russians No, not going to stop blaming the guilty, including the Russians. > and then tell your parties to work for the country and for themselves. I've found that politicians in both major parties have the second part down pretty pat, so I’m more concerned with the first. > I think best would be if people stopped calling themselves "Republicans" or "Democrats" and stopped identifying with a…

> No, not going to stop blaming the guilty, including the Russians.

Sure, but you're blaming the drop in the bucket.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#105

Post by ams6110 »

ilove_banh_mi wrote: post #21

This leak looks like a trial balloon. I'm fascinated by the notion that requiring disclosure of people's physical location, as well as demanding that they prove their identity, would be conducive to an online culture of free and healthy expression. These proposals seem to be aimed at intimidation and breaching the privacy of each and everyone, rather than at the surveillance-like operations and propaganda-enabling st…

So, my local paper had a comment section that was dominated by the typical hysterical, unhinged, anonymous arguing between far right and far left partisans that we see in a lot of online discourse.

They changed to a "real name" policy and now the comments, while much reduced, are also much more thoughtful and tend to stay on-topic.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#106

Post by slg »

atomi wrote: post #100
slg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have to separate the words from the action of saying those words. The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. However, often the words themselves are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal. Using your example, imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7. The words themselves might not be a prob…

> imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7 People protest all the time in similar ways. Also, you can block people/bots on social media.

>People protest all the time in similar ways.

Sure, that is why protesters are routinely arrested even though the first amendment exists.

>Also, you can block people/bots on social media.

The sole responsibility of policing and punishing this behavior should not fall on the victims of this behavior.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#107

Post by aerotwelve »

nybble41 wrote: post #36
User23 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obscenity isn’t protected by the first amendment. Obviously there is disagreement over what is and isn’t obscene.

> Obscenity isn’t protected by the first amendment. Right, I must've missed the "except for obscenity" clause. Oh wait, there isn't one... that's just something the courts made up out of thin air. The freedom of speech includes all speech, even obscene speech. It is never appropriate to respond to speech with force.

If you don't have a concept like obscenity -- even one that is as ill-defined as obscenity is after Miller -- you can't ban child pornography. Or the Human Sacrifice Channel.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#108

Post by guscost »

kodablah wrote: post #30

Ug, never proposals for education, grants for preferred alternative implementations, publicly funded communication platforms, recognition that the status quo is people's preference, data transparency encouragement (not user transparency...not "who", but "what" wrt internal analytics), enforcement of existing advertisement/fraud/collusion statutes, etc. The first step always has to be more legislation, very sad. I'd a…

If it makes you feel any better, nobody really gives a shit about these stupid regulations and nobody is going to stop folks from saying whatever they want here, or anywhere else if here becomes impractical. My personal website (not updated since forever) is my username dot com. And if ICANN turns against free speech there’s always pirate radio, every citizen who even considers “guns to protect us from the guvmint” should get trained as an amateur radio operator first.

(By the way, even as a supporter of the Second Amendment it is remarkable that in America one needs a license to operate a radio but not a rifle.)

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#109

Post by [deleted] »

Venlin wrote: post #8

The Congressional hearings involving Mark Zuckerberg showed that Congress is not equipt to deal with the problems social media has brought to society. I am highly skepticle of anything the senate convinces themselves is the right way to deal with social media; it seems like an attempt to set the stage to grab more power and control than anything else.

[deleted]

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#110

Post by foolrush »

atomi wrote: post #90
slg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>recognition that the status quo is people's preference...I'd argue in the scheme of things, it's not really that broken Continuing the status quo means the people in power stay in power. It therefore isn't surprising that the people in power prefer preserving the status quo. It also isn't surprising that the people who believe the system is broken and are most against the status quo are those that belong to historic…

As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.

Depending on the words, it is entirely illegal in many countries around the world. The USA is behind the curve on that.
Post reply on HN