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

591–598 of 598 posts

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

#591

Post by michaelmrose »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #509
michaelmrose wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was in kindergarten I knew people you saw in other contexts like school were people like your family who had names and families like your family. I have no idea how one could possibly reach that age and not know that. Extending that with the idea that people's families come in all sizes and combination with some having 2 men or two women seems entirely age appropriate. In the broader context this topic would b…

Your approval is of no value and your disdain is of no concern. If it helps you to create a fantasy in your mind of what my concerns might be, you are free to do so.

In your other post you referred to my kind and conquering me. Can you explain what that even means?

My kind is American or more broadly Westerner I suppose and I was not aware of any effort to conquer me.

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

#592

Post by intrasight »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #567
intrasight wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well said - and inspired me to chime in. We have much less freedom than we think, and the freedom we do have we pay a very high price for. I often use the phrase "What price freedom?" in conversations, and unfortunately most don't understand what it means.

What does it mean?

I think of it as having these meanings:

1. Your freedom can cause problems to me an to society as a whole

2. We pay much in blood and treasure to maintain our freedom

3. There are unintended consequences and knock-on effects to most all rules regarding freedom.

Or to generalize: "Freedom isn't free"

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

#593

Post by munk-a »

LBJsPNS wrote: post #590
hatefulmoron wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that his point? Plenty of you exist, yet your party will not represent your interests. The "left" party that you vote for has chosen a set of values that are contradictory to your own, and you have no recourse because who else will you vote for?

You seem to think kthe left wants to ban guns. Nope.

It depends on the specific politician but I think a generally accurate characterization of the left is that they want to restrict gun access (some of us would say that'd be a "sensible restriction" while others would disagree). There are some notable exceptions here from rural states. One of my Senators, Bernie Sanders, is actually rather pro-gun rights coming from a state that has a strong hunting tradition - though he is less in favor of handgun access.

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

#594

Post by dc-programmer »

bongoman37 wrote: post #347
dc-programmer wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading NextDoor completely disabused me of any notion that smaller government is better. It seems like everyone involved in local politics is an absolute crank. You can see this clearly in New Hampshire were the goofy libertarians who moved from other states gang up to defund public schools. At least with the Feds they are under a constant microscope. The most heinous corrupt shit in America almost always happens at…

Not just defund public schools, but legalize things like child porn and underage sex [1]. Purely local government is often shitty in the absence of any guardrail laws from a higher level. Small towns are filled with people who care for absolutely no one beyond their tiny group and can often have way more time on their hands than reasonable people who have work and family responsibilities and care about people around…

Wow I didn’t realize that. I only got the sanitized version of the story from Ira Glass

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

#595

Post by hatefulmoron »

LBJsPNS wrote: post #590
hatefulmoron wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that his point? Plenty of you exist, yet your party will not represent your interests. The "left" party that you vote for has chosen a set of values that are contradictory to your own, and you have no recourse because who else will you vote for?

You seem to think kthe left wants to ban guns. Nope.

You continue to ignore the point. Your party. The one you vote for. Not "the left", whatever that means.

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

#596

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

hcurtiss wrote: post #583
tsimionescu wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, in paragraph 3 of the law itself[0]: > Classroom instruction by school personnel or thirdparties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or [...] The common interpretation is that telling children that some like boys or girls like girls and some like boys is "instruction on sexual orientation". [0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...

No, that is your interpretation, and it’s ridiculous. That language does not speak to mentioning two dads. And will never be enforced that way

I think you may be underestimating how litigious the US law structure is, especially when it's used to push some culture war thing

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

#597

Post by bandyaboot »

0x445442 wrote: post #500
bandyaboot wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when those responsible for the Summer 2020 violence were not convicted of crimes First of all, Citation needed. Second of all, you realize that the people responsible for making prosecutorial decisions regarding Jan 6th crimes are not going to be the same people making those decisions for crimes committed during George Floyd protests and riots, right? You think they’re political prisoners because of perceived incon…

As I understand it there was plenty of federal property destroyed during the summer of 2020. Are you really saying the DOJ doesn’t prosecute people outside of DC? The insanity is turning a blind eye to the obvious hypocrisies and double standards that exist with the two examples.

Your feelings are telling you it’s hypocrisy, not your brain.

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

#598

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

joshuamorton wrote: post #558
rufus_foreman wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Note that 2 is open to interpretation The same is true for federal law. From https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/obscenity : "Federal law strictly prohibits the distribution of obscene matter to minors. Any transfer or attempt to transfer such material to a minor under the age of 16, including over the Internet, is punishable under federal law." Is that book banning? Do you think federal laws against providing p…

The important thing is how the law is interpreted. In Florida, "Obscene" is being interpreted (and in some cases written into statute) as far more than just pornagraphic, with the express intent that people like you can motte-bailey like this and claim that it's "just" banning pornography, when it isn't. For example, the graphic novel "Gender Queer" has been banned under the broad brush of "pornography" in Florida, w…

> cis- and hetero-normative "obscenity", like an anatomy textbook

If it's heteronormative to merely show anatomy (and presumably describe mating) then I don't understand why that's worth calling out. It's no insult to anyone to say that male-female relationships are the most common and the only ones that produce children. We don't need to represent everything as equally likely to say that it's okay.

As for cis, I struggle to see how anatomy would intersect with gender-identity at all. Bodies are male or female, and may be intersex.

> graphic novel "Gender Queer" has been banned under the broad brush of "pornography" in Florida, when it's educational

This feels like a problem of having to find a category. If there was an 'unapproved medical advice' category it would be more descriptive.

As for its educational content, it recommends - not merely discusses but actively recommends - drugs and breast-binding for something that many (most?) parents do not think is a medical condition.

> nor do they describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way.

In looking it up and reading it I discovered that the author said "It's been two years since it was published, why are they mad about it now?" and the answer to that is schools. The book wasn't being protested when it was available for sale, and in public libraries, only when it was placed in school libraries.

I think the 'patently offensive' element here is specifically that it's being placed in schools even though many parents don't want it and even explicitly over their objections.

Post reply on HN