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

231–240 of 598 posts

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

#231

Post by rufus_foreman »

klyrs wrote: post #78
case0x00 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what are you referring?

There is a "satire[1]" meme floating with some disinformation about book bans in Florida. However, the state is second, only behind Texas, in actual book bans[2]. Relatedly, the vague "don't say gay" law has a significant impact on LGBTQ teachers right to free expression -- straight teachers are totally free to talk about their spouses, for example, but gay teachers are not. Quite reminiscent of the "don't ask don't…

>> However, the state is second, only behind Texas, in actual book bans

The bans in the article you cited are done at the school district level, not the state level. Holding the executive branch of government of Florida responsible for those decisions would be similar to blaming the Biden administration for the actions of Florida's executive branch.

It also appears that the link you cited confuses curriculum selection with book banning. There's a range of what can be called a book ban. For example, when the novel Ulysses was banned, people who sold the book were arrested and imports of the book into the US were seized. That's definitely a book ban. Nothing of the sort is happening in Florida.

There are also cases where local school districts remove titles from school libraries, but those books can still be borrowed from public libraries, sold in book stores, or purchased or read online. If that's a book ban, it's not a book ban in the same sense that the ban of Ulysses was a book ban.

Then there are decisions by local school districts about what material should be used to teach classes in the schools in that district. For me, exercising control over school curriculum is not a book ban and is in no way similar to seizing copies of books and arresting people for selling those books.

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

#232

Post by TeeMassive »

klyrs wrote: post #78
case0x00 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what are you referring?

There is a "satire[1]" meme floating with some disinformation about book bans in Florida. However, the state is second, only behind Texas, in actual book bans[2]. Relatedly, the vague "don't say gay" law has a significant impact on LGBTQ teachers right to free expression -- straight teachers are totally free to talk about their spouses, for example, but gay teachers are not. Quite reminiscent of the "don't ask don't…

The state can't censor books per the 1A.... unless you're considering restricting some publications unsuitable for children "banning books"...

Also the don't say gay bill is fake news because it doesn't say that.

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

#233

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

cowtools wrote: post #197
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to Kiwi Farms was that no-one wanted to do business with them from a risk-management and just general good-moral-fiber basis.

The problem is that there are only a handful companies to do business with in the first place. I think what you would expect in a sane market is that they are forced to negotiate a more expensive deal with the remaining service providers due to the supply/demand imbalance. As there are so few service providers here, there's only a few levels of risk-tolerance/good-moral-fiber that you can negotiate on. Activists only…

I mean, yes and no. If you're loathsome enough, the asking price is going to be non-commercial for you, even in a perfect and infinitely deep market of providers.

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

#234

Post by uup »

TeeMassive wrote: post #227
paxys wrote: post #113

When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.

Net neutrality was about bandwith, not content. PACs lobbies and religion are 1A protected and not specific to Florida or Republicans, they can't and don't ban book that's fake news unless you consider all books acceptable in schools such as Mein Kampf and Play Boy magazines. Also none of what you said addresses the the proposed legislation.

Whether or not the first amendment applies to PACs is highly contentious. For instance, I don't think people have a constitutional right to form corporations, so I'm all for limiting the political speech of PACs. Just as I'm ok with limiting things people can do with their car via licensing.

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

#235

Post by frob »

user3939382 wrote: post #181
paxys wrote: post #113

When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.

> pro book banning in libraries I've seen tons of recent support for censorship from ideas and speech the (left? I wouldn't consider it actually left) doesn't like. Then you have conservatives moving against these books that promote woke religion and suddenly these same people are very pro free speech.

There's a huge difference between saying, "LGBT people are people," and "LBGT people should be shunned out of existence." Words have meanings.

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

#236

Post by nobody9999 »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #60
layer8 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look what happened to Kiwi Farms, and what happens to people who try to host their own outgoing SMTP server.

What happened to Kiwi Farms was that no-one wanted to do business with them from a risk-management and just general good-moral-fiber basis.

>What happened to Kiwi Farms was that no-one wanted to do business with them from a risk-management and just general good-moral-fiber basis.

While it's a somewhat different example and a bit reductive, I find this XKCD[0] to be relevant to the issues with Kiwi Farms.

I run several websites on my physical hardware and through the internet links for which I pay. I don't want (and won't allow) any speech on my private property that I don't wish to host or amplify.

If the government (as Florida's appears to wish to do) tries to tell me what content I must (or must not) publish (assuming it's protected speech under the First Amendment), not only won't I comply, I will scream bloody murder -- as it's a direct violation of the First Amendment -- because the government is involved.

What is it that strips other non-governmental entities of those same rights? Absolutely nothing.

Do I like much of the nastiness, trolling and disinformation that's out there? Nope. Which is another good reason (I abandoned the big "social media" companies nearly a decade ago because I objected to their business models) not to use the big "social media" players.

And whether you agree or disagree with those who do use such platforms, it's their choice to use them or not. Just as it's those (and every) platforms' right to host or not host any particular speech/expression.

I don't understand why technical folks don't understand this. If the government can force you to host speech you don't want to host on your own private property, then property rights are irrelevant.

As for the whole "common carrier" thing in relation to the big "social media" platforms, they don't have exclusive access to rights-of-way (e.g., last mile conduit for wired internet access, ownership of the cell towers, etc.). Setting up your own site is simple and cheap/free.

You have the right to free expression. You do not have a right to an audience.

If the big "social media" platforms (and/or platforms like Cloudflare, AWS, etc.) pull a 1357[0] on you, you do have recourse. Do it yourself. This isn't a complicated thing to understand, IMHO.

I'll say it again because I want to make it clear: I abandoned all the big "Social Media" platforms nearly a decade ago and find their practices and business models to be deeply offensive. What's more, I don't use Cloudflare or AWS or any other similar platforms.

So no, I'm not defending those corporations. At all. Rather, I'm defending the ideals of free expression.

[0] https://xkcd.com/1357/

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

#237

Post by zrail »

tialaramex wrote: post #179
jrm4 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but seriously, they're doing this stuff in such a sloppy way that I'd definitely be looking for opportunity, e.g. the wording of one of their anti-CRT things essentially said "no one can make someone else uncomfortable about race" and I'm like "word? I can work with that."

The thing is, just because it seems as though if the nonsense rules were enforced impartially they'd look like fools doesn't help you because they'll be the ones deciding how the rules are to be enforced. If you explain "literacy test" voting laws prior to the US Voting Rights Act without that sort of context people imagine well, you send one smart black teacher, they do a few lessons, next year every black person in…

> if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident"

Lynchings are never this circumspect.

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

#238

Post by TeeMassive »

uup wrote: post #234
TeeMassive wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality was about bandwith, not content. PACs lobbies and religion are 1A protected and not specific to Florida or Republicans, they can't and don't ban book that's fake news unless you consider all books acceptable in schools such as Mein Kampf and Play Boy magazines. Also none of what you said addresses the the proposed legislation.

Whether or not the first amendment applies to PACs is highly contentious. For instance, I don't think people have a constitutional right to form corporations, so I'm all for limiting the political speech of PACs. Just as I'm ok with limiting things people can do with their car via licensing.

Liberty of association is 1A protected.

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

#239

Post by scarface74 »

rayiner wrote: post #229
scarface74 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First Amendment case law involves the government. If the government of Florida wants a free for all social media platform, it can create one. If they don’t have the technical aptitude, I’ll gladly accept a multi million dollar contract to lead the creation of one. Leading the development of large scale infrastructure and back end development is kind of mg thing.

That’s an orthogonal point. The “speech” that the first amendment is primarily concerned about is political speech. That’s the code of the first amendment protection. The first amendment by its terms applies to the government. But that doesn’t mean that states can’t provide similar protections from the conduct of private parties.

So why stop at social media? Why shouldn’t the state control every website that allows comments including advocacy groups, religious groups etc?

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

#240

Post by bergenty »

While actively campaigning against any form of net neutrality which is the layer on which this argument should be made. The GOP are transparent, politically pukeworthy cretins at this point. Just thinking about them makes me want to spit.
Post reply on HN