Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 598 posts

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

#41
post #20
post #9

I agree and we should classify the underlying Internet service providers, that social media providers depends on, as common carriers as well!

Also services like Cloudflare, and email providers like GMail.

It's unclear to me that email and CDNs are the kinds of natural monopolies that need to be regulated as common carriers

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

#42
post #6

Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.

How would this even work on Reddit? Currently user moderators control all the user made subreddits.

If Reddit now has legal liability does Reddit need to moderate All subreddits by themselves? That sounds impossible.

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

#43
post #41
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also services like Cloudflare, and email providers like GMail.

It's unclear to me that email and CDNs are the kinds of natural monopolies that need to be regulated as common carriers

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

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

#44
post #20
post #9

I agree and we should classify the underlying Internet service providers, that social media providers depends on, as common carriers as well!

Also services like Cloudflare, and email providers like GMail.

Also television channels and libraries. They are as much of a common carrier as a website is.

Which is to say, they are not at all.

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

#45
post #40
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to post on 4chan, go post on 4chan. Don't turn the rest of the internet into 4chan so you can force gross ideas and content onto everyone else.

we should put speed limiters on cars so they can't go faster than 5 mph and endanger someone else

Are you describing speed limits on roads?

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

#46
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because his ideas and opinions are actively censored. It's no secret that social media has a heavy bias.

both sides think "social media" is biased against them; I honestly could not guess which way you think the bias goes

They're biased against something, because they delete legal content.

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

#47
post #9

I agree and we should classify the underlying Internet service providers, that social media providers depends on, as common carriers as well!

That's where the cognitive dissonance here kicks in: the case for ISPs to be common-carriers looks much stronger (from any principled perspective) than does the case for social media networks.

And yet, because this is a party-political issue, you have the Republican Party swearing up and down that ISPs are not (presumably because common-carrier status implies net neutrality and this is unpopular with donors or something?) but that social networks are (because they exhibit "bias").

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

#48
post #40
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to post on 4chan, go post on 4chan. Don't turn the rest of the internet into 4chan so you can force gross ideas and content onto everyone else.

we should put speed limiters on cars so they can't go faster than 5 mph and endanger someone else

Cars run on public roads. On the other hand if you said that only speed-limited cars are allowed on your property, you would be entirely in the right.

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

#49
post #42
post #6

Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.

How would this even work on Reddit? Currently user moderators control all the user made subreddits. If Reddit now has legal liability does Reddit need to moderate All subreddits by themselves? That sounds impossible.

Just hire enough people and charge the posters. There are many models that could work.

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

#50
post #3

This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.

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?
Post reply on HN