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

451–460 of 598 posts

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

#451

Post by scarface74 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #380
tsimionescu wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be more acceptable, exactly? This is not even about sexual education, it is literally illegal to explain to those kids that sometimes a man and a woman love each other, and sometimes two men or two women do the same. Of course, the first part will never be enforced, but the second and third clearly will. There is no age at which it is inappropriate to listen about these extremely basic facts of the worl…

When I was in kindergarten I didn't even know my teachers had first names, much less spouses. A kindergartener is not your friend to share your life with. People have terrible boundaries. This is why public schooling must be destroyed.

So if “public school should be destroyed” what has the alternative?

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

#452

Post by scarface74 »

smaryjerry wrote: post #420
scarface74 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really comparing the level of effort of setting a phone company to creating a social media platform or a website to get your ideas out there?

Exactly. There is much lower hanging fruit but if you ask someone what is more valuable to their business, phone service or social media, many would choose social media.

So these same companies are complaining that it is harder to target people because Apple has instituted the ability for people to say no to targeting. Should the government come in there? Would Truth Social like the Biden administration coming in and telling them what they can post?

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

#454

Post by scarface74 »

_-david-_ wrote: post #326
scarface74 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andy Jassy is my skip*10 manager the last time I checked. But there are always re-orgs. https://accelerationeconomy.com/cloud/amazon-shocker-ceo-jas... > With a $51B revenue run rate that’s growing 28% YoY (these were the Q4 2020 numbers we last publicly shared), it’s easy to forget that AWS is still in the very early stages of what’s possible. Less than 5% of the global IT spend is in the cloud at this point Why doe…

>Andy Jassy is my skip*10 manager the last time I checked. But there are always re-orgs. You should reread the article. It is saying 5% of it spending is on cloud. That has nothing to do with the percentage of cloud vs self hosting. It could be 5% of it spending but account for 100% of hosting. >Why does Parlor need to be an app at all? They can just be a website Because it makes it easier for people to interact with…

I work at AWS in Professional Services where we are pushed to go after the other 95%. I watch the ReInvent videos. He is very much talking about growing by going after the other 95%.

I know first hand how many large enterprises and state and local government institutions are self hosted.

In context, he is obviously talking about AWS’s growth potential by going after a large untapped market.

As far as “needing an app”. Do you really think the same people who will show up by the thousands to watch Trump and go through the trouble of invading the Capital won’t go out of their way to go to a website and post their opinions?

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

#455

Post by scarface74 »

chrismcb wrote: post #339
scarface74 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the same government where Montana has just as many Senators as California and the person who won the popular vote in 2016 lost the Presidential election?

You can't compare the two. They didn't run a campaign to win the popular vote. The outcome night have been different if they had

And the fact that the US is not a representative democracy and the small states have much more representation in government than their population should allow?

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

#456

Post by biglearner1day »

UncleMeat wrote: post #443
biglearner1day wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope that if someone writes a book saying people should physically harm you One could argue that calls for gender-affirming surgeries or treatments are equally, if not, worse. These topics are especially prevalent in the LGBTQ community, as I have found from my experience. Nevertheless, we seem to encourage this kind of behavior whereas we. It is important to be aware of which ideas you are rejecting, especially…

No one couldn’t. I’m sorry, but this is garbage. Harm is a thing. Transphobia is transphobia. I’m sure that racist whites thought that MLK was agitating for “equally bad, if not worse” things than Governor Faubus but they were just wrong.

I understand that you have a rich imagination, please do not use it to justify censorship.

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

#457

Post by scarface74 »

DuskStar wrote: post #418
DocTomoe wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What did you do during summer break, Mrs Dickson?" > "Clara, my wife, and I went to see bears at Yosemite. It was so exciting! Can you point to Yosemite on a map?" Everyday situation at any school I ever went to. Schools are not learning factories, they are social places, especially in K-3.

"My family and I went to see bears at Yosemite. It was so exciting! Can you point to Yosemite on a map?"

Which is more likely to start a controversy and trigger the law? A teacher saying that she and her husband went to a Christmas parade or a woman saying her and her wife went to a Pride parade?

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

#458

Post by scarface74 »

edgyquant wrote: post #382
scarface74 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely nothing stopping conservatives from establishing their own social media platform. Conservatives love “the free market” as long as it is working for them. Whose fault is it that Truth Social is an abysmal failure?

I’m a liberal but we’re reaching a point where this argument isn’t exactly truthful

You being a liberal actual trust the government with more power?

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

#459

Post by biglearner1day »

scarface74 wrote: post #448
biglearner1day wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power. It amazes me that we let social media platforms run freely with whichever narrative, ideology they enforce. Government influence has in most cases a negative outcome, but letting these platforms, especially ones at the scale of Twitter and Facebook, act freely is unwise.

So instead we give government more power to control the narrative? Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative. Would you also want the government to control RedState? FoxNews? Truth Socisl?

I was not disagreeing with you in the initial reply, two things can be true at the same time.

Like I said; government influence has a negative outcome in most cases, but allowing social media platforms to do as they wish is a recipe for disaster if we're not there already.

> Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative

I'm sure the ideological left appreciates the social media platform's bias towards their progressive ideology. It's equally wrong if they had a different bias. You, we, need to stop being divisive, it's toxic.

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

#460

Post by snovv_crash »

judge2020 wrote: post #323
fny wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Stronger local government would be great if people actually had the agency to move to any state they'd like. Instead, moving can be extremely difficult and time-consuming, so people are more likely to restrict their job searches to their closest metro area or at least stay within the same state/region; this is especially the case with Florida (population 20MM) where getting from South Florida (population 6MM) to the…

Local generally means county level. Something like maximum 1M people (exact number to be determined), and if it grows more than that it gets split.
Post reply on HN