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

261–270 of 598 posts

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

#261

Post by webmobdev »

jedberg wrote: post #171

There are several types of common carriers. One are transportation companies (including companies that transport electronic communication). The key differentiator between those and social media are that the content is private . So while they have to carry anything, the content of what they are carrying is from one party to another, and the carrier may not even know what it is. So that model shouldn't apply to social…

Your analogy about tech platforms being similar to cable companies which broadcast multiple channel is not correct as the tech platforms also host these "channels" / content and it is the internet which enables their distribution. So if they host these content, and want to decide what content should be disseminated, they are actually acting like TV / Radio media platforms. In which case, they need to accept the liability for the content they disseminate, just like any TV or radio business have to. But obviously tech companies do not want to bear this burden.

Online platforms are both communication platforms for private communication and public broadcast platforms like TV and Radio. Just apply the existing laws and regulations to both these aspects. If they don't want any liability, then they should be treated as common carriers who have to be neutral to the content that flows on their platform - let the content producer be liable. Ofcourse, this means anonymous content cannot be allowed.

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

#262

Post by rayiner »

scarface74 wrote: post #239
rayiner wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because different things are different? We have different rules for say public restaurants versus private clubs?

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

#263

Post by fny »

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.

And here I am wondering what the fuck happened to freedom.

Both the right and left have become supremely prescriptive in their own ways.

I want stronger local government. I have no way of trusting any of these assholes at the federal and state level. Why do they get to set standards for schools, infrastructure funding, or social policy? We have grid lock in part because there are different opinions on what's best.

So be it. We'll all do what we want, and time will prove what works best. Then we can use the federal/state levels for their intended purpose: handling externalities and international affairs.

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

#264

Post by jimmygrapes »

andrew_ wrote: post #258
andrew_ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

putting the erroneous media-assigned name of the bill in quotes doesn't make it any less erroneous. while the bill has flaws and is justly upsetting, we should not continue to propagate a falsehood.

For any downvoters, please review the following https://t.e2ma.net/click/sv236h/8z0tiag/wa9559 It does not ban nor prevent the use of the word "gay."

No post body was provided.

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

#265

Post by midoridensha »

AlphaSite wrote: post #260
midoridensha wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. The left has always been pro-censorship: Stalin and Mao, for instance, set up societies with lots of censorship. The right is also pro-censorship: think Hitler, or any religious conservatives for that matter.

The extreme left and right are both fairly problematic, although for different reasons and to different degrees.

Well when comparing Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, I don't really see any significant degree of difference...

If you're talking about what modern Americans consider "left" and "right", though, I'd agree, but what Americans consider "left" generally isn't very far left, and it depends on who you ask: talk to an internationally-minded American and they'll say the Democratic party is centrist at best, or center-right. Talk to a Trump voter and they'll say that party is "far-left radical communists".

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

#266

Post by favflam »

I think the Chinese have something to teach us.

Basically, once a social network surpasses say, 20M users, it becomes a defacto political entity, with the power to move elections. Given this immense power, the government should regulate accordingly.

Instead of passing detailed regulations though, I am of the opinion that if a company passes 200B USD in enterprise value, that Congress should get the right to appoint 50% of the board of directors. This way, the company's responsibilities match its defacto political power to sway elections.

Basically, make Facebook into an Amtrak or USPS. If Facebook does not like this idea, then they can split the company into pieces.

Additional benefit: this functions also as anti-trust regulation. Amazon would be subject to this as well.

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

#267

Post by SOTGO »

webmobdev wrote: post #250
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.

The Florida law says a social media platform "may not willfully deplatform a candidate for office" and imposes fines of up to $250,000 per day on social media companies that ban candidates for elected office. The law also says social platforms "may not apply or use post-prioritization or shadow banning algorithms for content and material posted by or about... a candidate," and may not "censor, deplatform, or shadow b…

Unless there are more qualifiers, wouldn't any user be able to avoid being banned by simply running for any office? It's not particularly hard to run for office, it's only hard to be elected. I agree that discriminating on political views has nasty implications, but the wording of this law seems ripe for abuse.

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

#268

Post by kweingar »

favflam wrote: post #266

I think the Chinese have something to teach us. Basically, once a social network surpasses say, 20M users, it becomes a defacto political entity, with the power to move elections. Given this immense power, the government should regulate accordingly. Instead of passing detailed regulations though, I am of the opinion that if a company passes 200B USD in enterprise value, that Congress should get the right to appoint 5…

Why stop at the board? Why not have the government actually buy half of the company?

Then the government can profit as well, like a sovereign wealth fund

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

#269

Post by joshuamorton »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #231
klyrs wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 selectio…

Districts are banning books they believe they need to to comply with state law.

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

#270

Post by mr_toad »

triceratops wrote: post #50
protomyth wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private companies are regulated all the time. Look up the rules for any utility or communications company. They banned politicians, so that's going to get laws passed.

So why aren't ISPs regulated like common carriers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
Post reply on HN