I’ll ask the same question I asked on the other threads to all those cheering this - do you think HN will be the same without moderation? Or just another 4chan? Will r/conservative stop banning users who dare suggest trump was maybe not such a good person, even if they are otherwise extremely conservative?
Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
51–60 of 598 posts
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#52At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the CDC), ban certain people in response to political pressures, and hand over user's private data without a warrant. That doesn't mean regulating them like common carries is good or workable, but we need to start by recognizing that there are first amendment clai…
The problem is finding the right balance between free speech and censorship.
I look forward to see how cases that go to the Supreme Court are going to be handled. I personally believe that a private business like Facebook has the right to control content on their app/website.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#53Meanwhile, Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions. This is not about a principled approach to free speech. It's about protecting the right to enforce religious-inspired bigotry, tearing down the separation of church and state even as that bigotry becomes "unpopular."
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#54Earlier 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.
They are given massive subsidies from the government to do so. Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do.
> Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do
Social network and communications have nothing to do with each-other? are you reading what you are writing? How is Facebook messenger call different from a phonecall of the 21st century?
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#55Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you’d support no more downvoting or flagging post here either.
fine with downvoting, just no banning or censoring for unpopular opinions
People don't usually get banned for their opinions. They get banned for being jerks. Try enabling showdead. There are some accounts marked as [dead] that I don't get, but the vast, vast majority of flagkilled posts and banned accounts I've seen don't deserve the product of someone else's labor to propagate their speech.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress passed a law to specifically ensure they are websites are not responsible for the speech they reproduce. This law is good because it encourages content moderation because there are never consequences for the moderation decisions.
> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?
Content moderation is a balancing act. Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action.
Do you believe that zero content moderation is good?
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#58At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the CDC), ban certain people in response to political pressures, and hand over user's private data without a warrant. That doesn't mean regulating them like common carries is good or workable, but we need to start by recognizing that there are first amendment clai…
So if you say the sky is green, and NASA says "That's wrong", you call that censorship?
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#59At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the CDC), ban certain people in response to political pressures, and hand over user's private data without a warrant. That doesn't mean regulating them like common carries is good or workable, but we need to start by recognizing that there are first amendment clai…
the big ones are also global companies who operate in many countries (and cooperate with many countries' law enforcement). For me, the better metaphor is to think of them as virtual governments of virtual territories
This seems like a better analogy than "private companies", but then where does that lead you in terms of how they should be treated? No snark here, genuine question.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.