[HN Gopher] Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social net... ___________________________________________________________________ Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers Author : pseudolus Score : 57 points Date : 2022-09-22 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com) (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com) | protomyth wrote: | Welcome to the natural consequence of social networks becoming | important to just do daily business. The phone companies, and | other utilities, operate under strict rules. I do wonder how many | and type of companies will become internet utilities? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | 99.5% of Americans could never log into Facebook, Twitter or | anything ever again with no substantial impact on their daily | lives. The remaining 0.5% have careers centered around social | media and should probably find a real job. | | Honest to goodness, the hyperventilation about how "important" | social media is just amazes me. | smaryjerry wrote: | And 100% of people could live without phone companies with no | impact to their daily lives, we've got internet right? Of | course I would be the one defining impact here. You may | consider impact to daily lives not substantial, but others | see the substantial impact of not being able to reach their | family, friends, and customers and the disadvantage that | comes with others having that access but you not. It's not | like Facebook actually is making the "social media" you see | in your feed, it is 100% carrying social media from users, | the same way a phone company aren't the one making calls. | scarface74 wrote: | 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? | paxys wrote: | > becoming important to just do daily business | | How is any social network today important for daily business? | You can live a perfectly normal life after deleting every | single one of them, and so many people have done exactly that. | Facebook is not equivalent to electricity or running water. | scarface74 wrote: | The phone companies and utilities are natural monopolies. | Creating a social media platform isn't. Doesn't every senior | developer interview at a BigTech company involve a question | "how would you design Twitter?". | bell-cot wrote: | IANAL, and have not read Florida's law, but it sounds ripe for | abuse by trolls: 1 - Become a political | candidate (even if a write-in for some bottom-end office in a | tiny municipality) 2 - Register with social networks as a | Florida-protected candidate 3 - Spend all your time | spewing hate at people you don't like. Maybe automate that, to | get both far more spewing and far more free time. | danaris wrote: | ...and this is where the difference between law and code kicks | in, as the social networks ban you, and when you sue under this | law, the courts say, "but everyone knows they only meant _real_ | political candidates; you know, from one of the two parties | that can actually win elections ". | bell-cot wrote: | You might want to look into how easy it can be to become a | real "major party" candidate, for a minor office, in a small | municipality. Especially if "your" major party is the "no | hope" party in a dyed-in-wool municipality, or you're just a | primary candidate. Or the party understands that you'll | mostly be spewing hate at people they hate. | | And if the social networks are forced to follow this Florida | law, and Mr. A. Troll De Vile was spewing hate at the | politicians behind the law...might some social networks feel | "deepest frustration" that they were, alas, legally barred | from banning Mr. De Vile? | pwinnski wrote: | Hi from Texas, where real-life candidates belonging to one of | the two major political parties spew open hate and then win | office. | Ekaros wrote: | 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. | nonethewiser wrote: | They are obviously publishers at this point. | pessimizer wrote: | Not sure what you mean. Publishers are held responsible for | bad content, and they are not. So we're deciding whether we | want to make them publishers, make them common carriers, or | keep the status quo. | | ----- | | edit: my guess as to what they are now is _online services | who republish submitted third-party content_ or however | section 230 defines them. | | ----- | | edit2: An _interactive computer service_ that retransmits | material provided by an _information content provider._ | | > No provider or user of an interactive computer service | shall be treated as the _publisher_ or speaker of any | information provided by another information content provider. | | So they are explicitly and definitively not publishers. | krapp wrote: | https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been- | referre... | ceejayoz wrote: | https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or- | platform-... | | > We'll say it plainly here: there is no legal significance | to labeling an online service a "platform" as opposed to a | "publisher." Yes. That's right. There is no legal | significance to labeling an online service a "platform." Nor | does the law treat online services differently based on their | ideological "neutrality" or lack thereof. | boardwaalk wrote: | It's a little (a lot) frustrating that people are so sloppy | with their thoughts (and by relation speech) on this | subject. | | It wouldn't take that long for people to read up on what | section 230 actually is before saying "publisher" like that | means anything (is related to anything the law talks | about). | | Laws of course need interpretation, but if people think, | "Oh, they're a 'publisher'" (whatever that means; they | probably couldn't tell you) "they must be subject to | different rules," they're frankly just kind of dumb. | pessimizer wrote: | The people who wrote 230(c)(1) must be really dumb then, | since they wasted all of that space to say that websites | wouldn't be treated as publishers. | layer8 wrote: | In the latter case, they might turn into an equivalent of Kiwi | Farms. It would certainly be interesting. | ch4s3 wrote: | That's not how the law is written. Section 230 of the | Communications Decency Act was SPECIFICALLY written to allow | providers of "interactive computer services" to moderate 3rd | party content posted to their servers. This was to address the | issue in the early 90s where online forms didn't moderate at | all for fear of taking on liability. | | A situation of only draconian moderation or none at all will | tend towards only draconian moderation since very few users | want a truly unmoderated space like the more obscure chan | sites. Its the worst of both worlds. | cjensen wrote: | 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. | pessimizer wrote: | > 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? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Content moderation is legal, and companies will do as much | or little of it, using whatever parameters necessary, to | attract people to their platforms and compete with other | platforms. | | Very few things are unambiguously good; particularly | without specifying a moral or ethical context. | aNoob7000 wrote: | 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? | pessimizer wrote: | I take content moderation on a case by case basis. That's | like asking me to decide between whether all movies are | good or all movies should be banned. | | > Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take | corrective action. | | We should help them by giving them far less latitude. | jcranmer wrote: | Note that the First Amendment prohibits the government | from being able to mandate any moderation guidelines | whatsoever, as moderation is inherently a content-based | restriction on speech. | triceratops wrote: | > do you believe that any and all content moderation is an | unambiguous good? | | Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. | Do you not believe in property rights? | pessimizer wrote: | I don't believe in _natural_ property rights, because I | don 't know how to find them in nature. Property rights | as assigned by law don't have to be believed in, just | observed, because they are enforced. | | "Natural extensions" of property rights are religious | beliefs. I believe they should be protected, but not | indulged. | triceratops wrote: | I didn't say anything about "natural" property rights. | | Property rights as assigned by law let you decide who to | allow or disallow access to your property. If the | property is open to the general public, there are some | additional rules you have to follow. But you're free to | ban activities from your property. | cjensen wrote: | Unambiguous good? No, it will depend on the quality of the | moderation. | | But I think it is more important to encourage good | moderators to moderate more than it is to punish poor | moderation. | scarface74 wrote: | Do you want a law telling you what you can publish on your | website? | pfisch wrote: | 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. | Ekaros wrote: | Just hire enough people and charge the posters. There are | many models that could work. | smaryjerry wrote: | That's partially true. Reddit assigns moderators to your | subreddit as well and if you don't moderate in a way they | like will force you to remove certain moderators or even ban | your community. | buildbot wrote: | 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? | klyrs wrote: | If HN and other forums are doomed to become 4chan, it would | probably be a net positive in my life. I waste too much time | here. | klyrs wrote: | Meanwhile, 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." | a-user-you-like wrote: | weakfish wrote: | What book is encouraging that? Or are you using hyperbole to | try and make your point sound more scary? | blast wrote: | I agree with you about that, but I also (might) agree with them | about this. | | Not that you said otherwise, but... I think we should go back | to a transactional mix-and-match style of politics, with | different coalitions per issue, instead of the "agree with your | friend tribe and disagree with your enemy tribe about | everything" style that we seem to be locked into these days. | There shouldn't be any shame in being part of the same | coalition on one issue with people who are reprehensible on | other issues. Agreeing with the Florida government about some | point of social media regulation doesn't imply I agree with | them about anything else. | systemvoltage wrote: | Well put. Welcome to contemporary political discussions. | Objectivity is really scarce. The entire discussion goes down | the toilet due to some form of 1) whataboutism 2) moral | superiority complex 3) strawmanning 4) gas lighting. Add a | dozen or so common biases and you've got a toxic brew of non- | productivity. Furthermore, reconition of biases from a list | like this [1] can be both good or bad. Bad in a way that it | can be weaponized to shutdown conversation. Basically, | everything you ever say (including this comment) would | violate one of these cognitive biases, its a huge list. Feel | free to use them as weapons! /s. There are also eggregious | misuse of 2) which comes in the form of "For the children" or | "Killing babies" or "For the good of the planet", etc. | | Modernity has brought us closer to subjectivism than ever. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases | munk-a wrote: | I am a one-issue voter (whenever it's on the ballot) and my | issue is voting reform because, in my view, the two party | system America (and almost Canada!) is stuck with is just | making inter-party discussions on policies impossible. Once | the political class has stratified like it has in America and | can box out anyone who doesn't pass a litmus test of dozens | of issues (Oh, you're pro-gun rights but also pro-abortion | access? Sorry, neither us nor the other guys want you) then | the political system will quickly break down. | | We desperately need elections where more than just the two | dominant parties can compete without a spoiler effect. | | This is happening, just FYI, up in Canada right now - there | are four parties worth talking about - Liberals, | Conservatives, NDP, Bloc Quebecois - the last two are | essentially just regional parties which do occasionally win | surprise seats but mostly just exist within a localized area. | That is enough, in our parliamentary system to force | cooperation at a federal level - but without serious action I | can't see any ending in sight other than slowly devolving to | American politics. | space_fountain wrote: | Isn't it consistent to say the government deciding not | distribute books is wrong for the same reason the government | telling private companies they must distribute speech they | disagree with is wrong? Both clearly violate free speech. | Maybe you don't actually think free speech is the standard, | maybe it's something more vague like an open society, but I | don't see this as any different than the state mandating | churches reserve 15 minutes at the start of each sermon for | anyone who wants to get up and say something | case0x00 wrote: | To what are you referring? | klyrs wrote: | 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 tell" policy. | | [1] https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/a-viral-list- | of-b... | | [2] https://floridapolitics.com/archives/557111-florida- | second-o... | zdragnar wrote: | What's struck me as weird about this is that I don't recall | a single teacher ever mentioning their spouse, or their | personal weekend plans. | | The idea that a teacher wants to talk to their students | about their personal lives is utterly foreign to me. | | Maybe it's just a sign of times changing? | | Edit: this thought came to me in the context of a quote I | saw from a teacher upset he couldn't talk about going | surfing with his husband. | | There was a wide enough income gap in our school that | teachers talking about vacations was frowned upon, since | you never really knew which kids didn't actually ever get | to go on vacations, etc. | fzeroracer wrote: | Did you never have a teacher you were friendly with or | served as a mentor even outside of class? I grew up in | poverty and if it wasn't for a couple teachers going | above and beyond I probably would've never got the help I | need to get free community college tuition. | | With cases like that, personal details end up discussed | inadvertently because it's impossible to avoid. So-and- | so's wife might be a teacher in the same district, or | they might show up at school during late work hours and | so forth. Same if they're running a club or some | extracurricular activity. | | I don't think that's especially weird at all. | klyrs wrote: | I had a teacher who taught a class that regularly | featured his vacation photos because he spent his summers | traveling. Sounds super corny, but he managed to make it | interesting, and the first-person account brought to life | the countries, religions and philosophies that we | learning about. His wife occasionally showed up in those | pictures. | | My school also had two married teachers who shared a | surname. We all knew they were married. | | There were also a few teachers (band, orchestra, sports | coaches) whose spouses would volunteer at events and | travel with them. | | Also quite a few teachers wore religious symbols -- cross | on a necklace kind of thing. And quite a few of my | teachers had pictures of their families on their desks. | They didn't make a big deal about it, but evidence was in | plain sight. | | Now, I was in the high school in the 90s. I'm not sure | when you think this changed. | Kerbonut wrote: | I agree and we should classify the underlying Internet service | providers, that social media providers depends on, as common | carriers as well! | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | 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"). | Meekro wrote: | I agree that we should have both ISPs and major social | networks as common carriers. Based on talking with Republican | friends, I think the difference is that social networks are | well-known censors. If Xfinity was known to censor as | aggressively as Twitter and Facebook do, they would also be | in favor of common carrier rules for them. But as it is, | they're content to leave well enough alone. | layer8 wrote: | Also services like Cloudflare, and email providers like GMail. | case0x00 wrote: | I agree, unless the alternative is to break apart the | monopolies which I think is better. | scarface74 wrote: | How is an email server a common carrier? People have been | setting up email servers for decades and there are plenty of | alternatives. | elil17 wrote: | It's unclear to me that email and CDNs are the kinds of | natural monopolies that need to be regulated as common | carriers | layer8 wrote: | Look what happened to Kiwi Farms, and what happens to | people who try to host their own outgoing SMTP server. | elil17 wrote: | Something requiring decent scale is totally different | than being a natural monopoly. There were plenty of DDoS | protection options on the market. I can't grow my own | wheat, build my own car, or DDoS protect my own website - | these all require economies of scale. But they aren't | natural monopolies, there's plenty of competition in each | space. On the other hand, internet is a natural monopoly | because the capital costs are so high and are relatively | inelastic with the number of users served. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | 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. | pwinnski wrote: | Kiwi Farms is offline not because CloudFlare refuses to | do business with them, but because _everybody_ | collectively refuses to do business with them. Otherwise | they could just have gone to a competitor. | | One can still find what happened to them chilling, but | that doesn't make CloudFlare a "common carrier." | vkou wrote: | 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. | scarface74 wrote: | Broadcast TV only exists because they license the public | airwaves and the spectrum they use is of limited supply and | is again a natural monopoly. Cable TV networks have no such | restrictions. | brk wrote: | This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is | the wrong motivation. | | Politicians really should not have special exemptions or | privileges when it comes to free speech issues. Eg: they have | exceptions to use robo-calls, text spam, etc. | | Realistically, we probably need to define when an organization is | a media influencer vs. a niche communications platform. I do | think Facebook/Twitter/Etc. need to be held to a different level | of accountability on things like this than say Tomshardware, or | HN. | nonethewiser wrote: | The law applies to social media sights with > 100,000 monthly | active users. | pessimizer wrote: | > This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO | is the wrong motivation. | | Because political censorship is the worst censorship (you might | argue that all censorship is political.) It's like how | political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a | dictatorship. | | If the powerful are censoring the political process, there are | no means to make any of the powerful less powerful. It becomes | self-perpetuating. | marcosdumay wrote: | Political speech is not "speech made by politicians". | brk wrote: | But at the same time, politicians using social media to | continuously publish blatant lies is also not a mechanism for | stable government. In the past, this was regulated to a large | degree by traditional media outlets being a filter of sorts | and not just printing any random direct statement made by a | politician. | | I think there is a balance between "social media must not | interfere with blatantly false statements from politicians" | and "social media can ban their political detractors without | consequence". The ideal reality would be the public actually | holding politicians responsible for being deceptive or | treasonous, but that does not appear to be on the horizon | either. | scarface74 wrote: | 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? | b800h wrote: | I think there's a potential argument against this. | | 1. Network effects mean that there's only space for one | platform in a particular niche. | | 2. There are reports (are they reliable?) that people who | are more left wing are more habitually online and post much | more. | | If the above two are true, then left-wing social networks | will naturally dominate. | scarface74 wrote: | There is only space for one platform, yet there are | plenty of platforms for discourse. Are you really arguing | that for instance Trump or Foxnews don't have the | following to start an alternate social media? | | As far as #2, why should tgat be an argument for the | government to be involved? | b800h wrote: | Well I'm hedging my bets. If it really is true that the | market in a particular area (microblogging for instance) | can only be dominated by a single company, and also that | left-wing users are more active, then absolutely, I'm | arguing that Fox would be unable to maintain a successful | rival to Twitter. | | As far as #2 is concerned, well I don't know if it is an | argument for the government to become involved, but if | something is driving huge divisions in society which are | arguably destabilising the country (again, this is | arguably wrong) then should the government not intervene? | I'm European by the way, so my philosophical priors might | be different to those of an American. | | It's not as though government doesn't regulated other | human behaviours which cause damage if left unregulated. | Drink driving, for example. | scarface74 wrote: | I actually have my own "micro blog" at wait for it | "micro.blog" (https://digitalnomadder.micro.blog/about/) | It's more of a journaling thing. But I'm sure if I had | the reach of many of the conservatives I could make a | healthy living by monetizing it (not interested) or at | least getting my own views out there. | | I've made the offer plenty of times, I would gladly | overcharge any conservative to lead the creation of a | social media site that could stand up to the likely | traffic. It would be like the atheist who got rich | selling a mobile Bible app. | | If I couldn't lead the charge, I need to give up my | $DayJob. | [deleted] | bandyaboot wrote: | > It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a | place is a dictatorship. | | That's an easy sign right up until you have to define | "political prisoner". According to some, people convicted of | crimes committed during the January 6th insanity are | "political prisoners". | Volundr wrote: | It'd also not be unreasonable to look at many of the people | imprisoned for the US's "war on drugs" that way. Many of | those laws were written targeting "undesirable" voters. | rayiner wrote: | The first amendment case law recognizes that protection for | political speech is the very core of the First Amendment. It's | the whole point. | | Indeed, prior to the mid-20th century, it was understood that | other kinds of expressive speech (pornography, etc.) did not | receive as much, if any, protection. | scarface74 wrote: | First Amendment case law involves the government. If the | government of Florida wants a free for all social media | platform, it can create one. If they don't have the technical | aptitude, I'll gladly accept a multi million dollar contract | to lead the creation of one. Leading the development of large | scale infrastructure and back end development is kind of mg | thing. | vdnkh wrote: | Mattasher wrote: | At 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 claims on both sides now. | aNoob7000 wrote: | 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. | klyrs wrote: | The Supreme Court is little more than a chapter of the | Federalist Society right now. Even Roberts cannot moderate | them. | throwaway4220 wrote: | So if you say the sky is green, and NASA says "That's wrong", | you call that censorship? | radford-neal wrote: | If someone writes a post saying the sky is green, NASA says | "that's wrong", and then goes on to say that if the social | media platform doesn't remove the post saying the sky is | green, NASA will forbid the platform from sending any | messages using communication satellites, then yes, that is | censorship. | | Of course, they're unlikely to behave so blatantly, at least | initially. They're more likely to just sort of hint at how | anti-trust prosecutions might be started or not depending on | whether the platform follows the government's "advice". | fallenasleep wrote: | 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 | Mattasher wrote: | 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. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Sorry, where are the First Amendment issues with allowing | social media networks to censor whatever they want? | | "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of | religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or | abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right | of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the | Government for a redress of grievances." | | Let's please not make the mistake of saying all issues that | relate to freedom of speech are First Amendment issues. | kcplate wrote: | > Let's please not make the mistake of saying all issues that | relate to freedom of speech are First Amendment issues. | | The problem is when government and social media actively | collude to side step the government's responsibility to the | first amendment...the government has dragged the social media | companies into first amendment territory. | | You have two ways of handling this: one...have the government | police itself...which it won't do, because it is already | actively trying to find ways around its responsibility to | freedom of speech; Or two, start lawsuits that expose the | collusion and start making it expensive for social media | companies to collude with the government to censor. | HotGarbage wrote: | sanp wrote: | Isn't it up to Congress to legislate this? Or, is the hope that | the current SC will make law? | fzeroracer wrote: | It should be incredibly obvious to just about anyone that this | sort of law is untenable and would just lead to social media | companies either completely banning anyone from Florida from | posting on their platform or putting them into their own special | space completely separated from the rest of the world. | | Someone in Florida will issue a terrorism threat that goes afoul | of European laws or something and social media platforms will | sooner side with the rest of the world than Florida. And how is | Florida going to have any standing to try and sue a company in | compliance that does not operate in or offer service to Florida? | | It's the same as what's going down in Texas. Never mind that as | another commentator mentioned these same state governments are | also busy burning books and censoring other individuals so it's | not a matter of equal freedom. They want the ability to threaten | minorities. | Jemm wrote: | Funny how they care now when they feel oppressed. | paxys wrote: | 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. | jrm4 wrote: | No, but seriously, they're doing this stuff in such a sloppy | way that I'd definitely be looking for opportunity, e.g. the | wording of one of their anti-CRT things essentially said "no | one can make someone else uncomfortable about race" and I'm | like "word? I can work with that." | munk-a wrote: | At the same time - this one move might make Florida | accidentally the most progressive state in America. | scarface74 wrote: | The same Florida that passed a law specifically to punish | Disney because they spoke out against the "Don't Say Gay" law | and passed the "Stop Woke" act? | munk-a wrote: | I suppose I should've added some more overt humor markers | on the above statement. | eddof13 wrote: | 100% agree with florida here, would be huge for me | ceejayoz wrote: | Why would this be huge for you? | brink wrote: | Probably because his ideas and opinions are actively | censored. It's no secret that social media has a heavy bias. | fallenasleep wrote: | both sides think "social media" is biased against them; I | honestly could not guess which way you think the bias goes | pessimizer wrote: | They're biased against something, because they delete | legal content. | nrb wrote: | Who cares that it's legal though? You're on their | property, committed to abiding by their terms of service | even. | | If you're hosting a garden party and one of the guests | has become disruptive to everyone else, are you not | allowed to demand they cease their behavior or leave your | property just because their angry ranting is not illegal | speech? | | You're totally within your right to say "I'm out, this | party sucks anyway, you guys don't want to have honest | debate" but it's a little absurd to force the property | owner to allow you to stick around when you are no longer | welcome. | luckylion wrote: | And both Ukraine and Russia say they are being attacked. | | I think there is real bias (and in the West it's more | biased against conservatives and some minority groups | while it's different elsewhere, depends mostly on the | dominant ideology) and there's faux discrimination to get | victim points to trade in for control. | eddof13 wrote: | it aligns with my values on free speech and I think social | media platforms should be common carriers and be forced to | allow all free speech (aside from fire in a crowded theater) | triceratops wrote: | Enjoy the deluge of spam | b0sk wrote: | And getting banned because you repeatedly say that the | election is fraud and urge your supporters to storm the | capitol (and getting one such person killed) isn't the | equivalent of fire in a crowded theater? | | Moderation is hard. They get it right 99% of the time. | acomjean wrote: | I guess you'd support no more downvoting or flagging post here | either. | eddof13 wrote: | fine with downvoting, just no banning or censoring for | unpopular opinions | sixstringtheory wrote: | 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. | smaryjerry wrote: | This is idealistic thinking however there are countless | cases where a ban was done by a bad actor or bad | algorithm, with the only recourse being a user taking | their ban to another platform to complain, and if they | gain enough traction on another platform then they get | the ban reversed. Unfortunately that only works for large | creators while small creators have zero recourse for | unjust bans. | acomjean wrote: | I'm not sure how that would work. Isn't enough downvotes | the same a censoring as the site isn't letting your opinion | be heard. Dang won't be able to step in and maintain order. | Spam couldn't be disallowed. | pfisch wrote: | 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. | eddof13 wrote: | we should put speed limiters on cars so they can't go faster | than 5 mph and endanger someone else | pfisch wrote: | Are you describing speed limits on roads? | triceratops wrote: | 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. | sixstringtheory wrote: | Hyperbole aside, I've ridden in supercars that are equipped | with speed limiters in order to be able to drive on public | roads legally in the US. | b0sk wrote: | Now that we've come to analogies, think that they are | traffic lights. | ProAm wrote: | 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. | protomyth wrote: | 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. | scarface74 wrote: | Utilities and communication companies are natural monopoles | because they require government easements on private property | and a license to limited airways | triceratops wrote: | So why aren't ISPs regulated like common carriers? | protomyth wrote: | Before 2018 they were, and now they are listed as Title I | information services. There is a bit of a court fight over | the ability of state regulators to impose rules. I would | imagine that they could be moved back if they cause trouble | for politicians. | triceratops wrote: | That's an open admission that none of these laws are | about principles or "freedom of speech". They're openly | political, and they should be upfront about that. | protomyth wrote: | Every law is politically motivated. "Freedom of Speech" | is a politically motivated. | ProAm wrote: | 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. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > 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? | scarface74 wrote: | A phone call is enabled by easements on public land. | Facebook Messenger is just one of many messaging | programs. I bet you right now Google has 5 in the works. | | I have at least 7 apps on my phone now that I can use to | call someone over an app. | ProAm wrote: | Communication is infrastructure. A social network is not. | Pretty straight forward. | triceratops wrote: | I only have one or 2 choices of phone carriers with a | high cost to switch. I have a multitude of alternatives | to FB Messenger (which I don't even use) with very low | cost to switch. | danaris wrote: | Your conclusion ("this is a terrible precedent") is correct, | but the way you get there makes no sense. | | The government makes laws about how private companies and | citizens can act all the time without funding them. You think | the government has to fund every auto maker in order to impose | emissions standards on them? Or that every company making | communications equipment/chips is funded by the government, so | that they can impose regulations on what spectrum they can use? | | This is a terrible precedent because there is no sane, logical | way to define social networks as common carriers, and because | Section 230 was _specifically_ written to allow and encourage | content moderation. | ejb999 wrote: | >>These are private companies, who is the government to tell | them how to operate without funding them | | You are kidding right? You don't think the government already | controls almost everything about how companies can operate? | [deleted] | chasd00 wrote: | social networks straddle the fence. They want to be common | carriers when it comes to being responsible for the content | published on their platforms and then they want to be | publishers when it comes to deciding what content is curated, | promoted, and publicized on their platform. | | They were allowed to have it both ways because the Internet and | especially user generated content was new and no one knew where | it would go. Now I think there's been plenty of history and | time to see it shake out and they should pick an option; either | common carrier or publisher but not both. | | / did i use that semicolon right? | nonethewiser wrote: | The government already regulates publishers. When you make | decisions about what to feature and what to exclude you are a | publisher. | yamtaddle wrote: | A corporation is a _creation_ of government. Why shouldn 't | they be able to regulate them any way they think best? Which | isn't _necessarily_ to say this is a good idea, but... of | course government should be able to tell companies how to | operate. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Except in ways that are constitutionally prohibited, right? | yamtaddle wrote: | Yeah, sure. | | For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear | that changes much, though. | | [EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically--well, | again, corporations are a _creation of_ of government, so | it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached | the government cares to create (so far as what 's ethical, | if not what's _a good idea_ ), and if the folks running | corporations don't like it, they can always... stop running | corporations. No one's _forcing_ them to run a corporation, | and they can all go do whatever they like with full | protection of the US Constitution and all that jazz, if | they use their own personal resources and don 't hide | behind corporate liability shields. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to | pass a law preventing newspaper publishers (whether | persons natural or juridical) from, for example, | endorsing presidential candidates? | yamtaddle wrote: | > Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress | to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers from, for | example, endorsing presidential candidates? | | Nah, but I also reckon there's a reason the press is | mentioned specifically in that amendment. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | What about a law prohibiting unions from doing so? | yamtaddle wrote: | I wouldn't _want_ them to--again, that 's separate--but | yeah, maybe, since they're also effectively chartered by | the government (as they pretty much can't exist in any | useful way absent special government support of some kind | or another--but then, same goes for corporations). | | I mean, they _do in fact_ already dictate a lot about how | both unions and corporations can operate, so yeah, | prohibiting endorsement of candidates using union | resources doesn 't seem entirely crazy to me. Though, | again, I'd rather they didn't. | scarface74 wrote: | So in that case, why not let the government just take over | any company it sees fit? | | If you're okay with the government controlling any legal | organization do yoh feel the same way about government | controlling churches? Advocacy groups? | klyrs wrote: | On the other hand, stripping corporations of their speech, | reversing Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, would be great. But | that isn't the real objective behind this law. | eddof13 wrote: | nah. my bank, electric company, telephone carrier, internet | carrier, and social media platforms (effectively the public | square) should have no choice but to carry me regardless of my | opinions ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-22 23:01 UTC)