Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

[colfax_m]

Since the youTube vendors created businesses based on the ability to broadcast the products on youTube, declining to broadcast them causes serious financial harm to the vendor, so why shouldn't they be allowed to sue?

Because they have no right to publish on the YouTube platform.

These vendors were well aware that they don’t own the platform that they built their business upon and so if it goes away, it’s their own fault. There is no contract between vendors and YouTube that mandates they have to continue to serve them.

 

[WEATHER53]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.

Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.

Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.

I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS

Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.

this is not a Republican or Democrat thing.

Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?

Big tech fucked up. Big tech should not have been playing the games they were playing. Now they get no liability protection.

I'll be sure to work up some tears and snot on behalf of big tech and their loss of government protection. How sad.

This is very juvenile.. Facebook doesn't want to be a party to lies and slander, character assassination dangerous medical advice.. They have that right. You should start your own platform that admires that sort of garbage.

well that’s not true. they simply want to be a party to the views they agree with and censor others
which is fine and their right

they can publish and edit whatever they want

but they should be treated just like other publishers and not get extra protections and immunities

There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.

You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.

Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed

thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .

 

[otto105]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

If I was big tech I would stop doing business in an unfriendly business state.

California?

Did they pass a bill which regulates business that way?

Who cares if they did?

Why is desantis telling business what it can or can’t do?

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.

Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.

Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.

I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS

Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.

Great, so you'll take my challenge that all the other leftists have turned down. Go into a major US city wearing a MAGA hat and spend the day shopping and dining. Since the problem is Republicans, you'll be perfectly fine. Trust me. Do it and report back

how about standing in white America with a BLM MESSAGE?

the guy is a dumbass.......

If you can’t identify the dumbass, you might be a racist.

 

[bripat9643]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.

Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.

Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.

I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS

Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.

this is not a Republican or Democrat thing.

Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?

Big tech fucked up. Big tech should not have been playing the games they were playing. Now they get no liability protection.

I'll be sure to work up some tears and snot on behalf of big tech and their loss of government protection. How sad.

This is very juvenile.. Facebook doesn't want to be a party to lies and slander, character assassination dangerous medical advice.. They have that right. You should start your own platform that admires that sort of garbage.

well that’s not true. they simply want to be a party to the views they agree with and censor others
which is fine and their right

they can publish and edit whatever they want

but they should be treated just like other publishers and not get extra protections and immunities

There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.

You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.

Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that snd failing
Facebook invites you end presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to ist pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed

tgsts the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .

Since the youTube vendors created businesses based on the ability to broadcast the products on youTube, declining to broadcast them causes serious financial harm to the vendor, so why shouldn't they be allowed to sue?

Because they have no right to publish on the YouTube platform.

These vendors were well aware that they don’t own the platform that they built their business upon and so if it goes away, it’s their own fault. There is no contract between vendors and YouTube that mandates they have to continue to serve them.

Hmmmm, yes they do. That's what rule 230 says. They are presenting themselves as common carriers. Preventing people from using their platform because they support trump is like the telephone company telling Trump supporters they can't use the telephone.

You truly are a colossal dumbfuck.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes they are editing the speech of others, dumbass. Refusing to publish some and not others is editing.

Nope. Not editing. Doesn’t matter anyway. Not publishing is protected by the first amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

Should people be able to buy ads for one candidate without recognizing it as a contribution to that candidate? If so, why should companies be able to provide direct political benefits without recognizing that as a contribution?

You never addressed his point

Yeah, I don't really care. That kind of campaign finance regulation is just another way for the state to suppress dissent. People and companies should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns however the like.

Of course you don't care. If you read your posts, every argument is literally based on this. When the current system works for Democrats, you throw out some libertarian sounding BS justifying the current system. You only want it changed if it isn't working for Democrats, then you throw out libertarian sounding BS to justify "fixing" it ... for Democrats.

Every argument you make follows that logic.

EVERYONE sees that, which is why Democrats love you and everyone else doesn't. The only person who doesn't see your crap for what it is would be you

Quit being stupid. It is the Republicans that are the moral relativists. For instance, it is perfectly fine for a company, like say "My Pillow", to step into the political arena and broadcasts their beliefs. But damn first time a company stands up against, say the Georgia election law, you got Republicans like Ted Cruz threatening to punish them. That is hypocritical. Just like this bullshit from little boy DeSantis. Because make no mistake about it, he is a tiny little boy.

He wants to force media companies, especially social media, to air his bullshit. But first time someone starts broadcasting about his tiny little pecker he will be screaming for censorship. You Trumpsters have no morals, ZIPPO. You stand for absolutely nothing, your ethics are as fluid as a overflowing river. It would be sad really, if it were so damn dangerous. You have not made America Great again, you have made America a damn cesspool, and you are more than willing to wallow around in that shit like a pig, regardless of how much you stink up the place.

Desantis is ambitious, but not smart.. He thinks he can ride in on Trump's coatails.. Law school didn't make him intelligence .

I have seen this before at Yale.. Good with book learning but missing out in character and morality.

How would you know whether he's smart?

You have to be smart to get into Harvard, but smart isn't enough. I have friends, classmates and relatives who went to Harvard. Sadly, if you can make the cut academically they can't get rid of you. The same is true at Yale.

But you're the forum's biggest dumbass.

 

[colfax_m]

That's what rule 230 says. They are presenting themselves as common carriers. Preventing people from using their platform because they support trump is like the telephone company telling Trump supporters they can't use the telephone.

This is entirely incorrect. Like, entirely.

Let’s start with the fact that there is no rule 230. It’s section 230. You can’t even get basic nomenclature rights. Common carrier status is an entirely different issue and has no relevance here.

You are simply uninformed.

 

[Winston]

Should people be able to buy ads for one candidate without recognizing it as a contribution to that candidate? If so, why should companies be able to provide direct political benefits without recognizing that as a contribution?

You never addressed his point

Yeah, I don't really care. That kind of campaign finance regulation is just another way for the state to suppress dissent. People and companies should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns however the like.

Of course you don't care. If you read your posts, every argument is literally based on this. When the current system works for Democrats, you throw out some libertarian sounding BS justifying the current system. You only want it changed if it isn't working for Democrats, then you throw out libertarian sounding BS to justify "fixing" it ... for Democrats.

Every argument you make follows that logic.

EVERYONE sees that, which is why Democrats love you and everyone else doesn't. The only person who doesn't see your crap for what it is would be you

Quit being stupid. It is the Republicans that are the moral relativists. For instance, it is perfectly fine for a company, like say "My Pillow", to step into the political arena and broadcasts their beliefs. But damn first time a company stands up against, say the Georgia election law, you got Republicans like Ted Cruz threatening to punish them. That is hypocritical. Just like this bullshit from little boy DeSantis. Because make no mistake about it, he is a tiny little boy.

He wants to force media companies, especially social media, to air his bullshit. But first time someone starts broadcasting about his tiny little pecker he will be screaming for censorship. You Trumpsters have no morals, ZIPPO. You stand for absolutely nothing, your ethics are as fluid as a overflowing river. It would be sad really, if it were so damn dangerous. You have not made America Great again, you have made America a damn cesspool, and you are more than willing to wallow around in that shit like a pig, regardless of how much you stink up the place.

Desantis is ambitious, but not smart.. He thinks he can ride in on Trump's coatails.. Law school didn't make him intelligence .

I have seen this before at Yale.. Good with book learning but missing out in character and morality.

Well then I would say that is a reflection on Yale. They need someone like Harvard's Sandel. HIs class is required, and hundreds of thousands sign up for it online. Too bad it was not a requirement for law school students like Desantis.

Here is the thing. Desantis is a punk. No wonder he idolizes Trump. Trump is a punk too. That is what really flips me out. How can people be consumed with an obvious punk. I mean I have spent the last two years studying morality, a big part of that with Sandel. Trump is not a moral person. He has no ethics. The only person he cares about is himself. When he takes the podium and openly mocks someone with a disability you see all that you should have to see. The Trump supporters willingness to abandon every single principle of morality simply to gain support for positions they might have, like feeling left out, or losing their "white" majority, or combating immigrants in the workforce, they don't reveal strengths, they reveal weakness. They can own all the guns in the world, have all the money they could possibly need, but if they support a punk like Trump they deserve everything they have coming to them. Karma is a *****, she will get her due.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes they are editing the speech of others, dumbass. Refusing to publish some and not others is editing.

Nope. Not editing. Doesn’t matter anyway. Not publishing is protected by the first amendment.

Yes, editing, dumbfuck. You will never admit it simply because you like the way youTube and Facebook censor their content.

Facebook cannot censor for the same reason that the telephone company can't exclude poeple it doesn't like

Quit pretending you support the First Amendment. We all know that's a lie.

 

[struth]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.

Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.

Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.

I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS

Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.

this is not a Republican or Democrat thing.

Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?

Big tech fucked up. Big tech should not have been playing the games they were playing. Now they get no liability protection.

I'll be sure to work up some tears and snot on behalf of big tech and their loss of government protection. How sad.

This is very juvenile.. Facebook doesn't want to be a party to lies and slander, character assassination dangerous medical advice.. They have that right. You should start your own platform that admires that sort of garbage.

well that’s not true. they simply want to be a party to the views they agree with and censor others
which is fine and their right

they can publish and edit whatever they want

but they should be treated just like other publishers and not get extra protections and immunities

There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.

You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.

Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed

thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .

personally i feel facebook and tweeter have become so big, that they are beyond the “bill board” platform and are essentially common carriers like the telephone and should be regulated as such

 

[Orangecat]

You ready to sue US Message Board if they kick you off?

The Florida law permits legal action for monetary damages. Do you need further explanation as to why USMB would be immune to lawsuits?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's not a stretch to assume the CDC's bosses threatened social media and that is government using social media as a tool.

Do you have ANY evidence of such a threat? Is it a "stretch" to assume that FB merely agrees with the CDC?

Otherwise, what does social media have to gain by dutifully policing content the CDC claims is the decree of truth?

The same thing this site has to gain when they ban trolls. It cleans things up and makes for a better user experience.

Did they tell their consumer (users are consumers) that content disagreeing or even questioning the CDC's claims would be removed and/or bans issued?

That's all this law requires, other than requiring them to platform political candidates.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what rule 230 says. They are presenting themselves as common carriers. Preventing people from using their platform because they support trump is like the telephone company telling Trump supporters they can't use the telephone.

This is entirely incorrect. Like, entirely.

Let’s start with the fact that there is no rule 230. It’s section 230. You can’t even get basic nomenclature rights. Common carrier status is an entirely different issue and has no relevance here.

You are simply uninformed.

Wrong:

47 U.S. Code § 201 - Service and charges​

(a)
It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes.

(b)
All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful: Provided, That communications by wire or radio subject to this chapter may be classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, Government, and such other classes as the Commission may decide to be just and reasonable, and different charges may be made for the different classes of communications: Provided further, That nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall be construed to prevent a common carrier subject to this chapter from entering into or operating under any contract with any common carrier not subject to this chapter, for the exchange of their services, if the Commission is of the opinion that such contract is not contrary to the public interest: Provided further, That nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall prevent a common carrier subject to this chapter from furnishing reports of positions of ships at sea to newspapers of general circulation, either at a nominal charge or without charge, provided the name of such common carrier is displayed along with such ship position reports. The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

 

[WEATHER53]

Interesting
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, I hope we can use it wisely.

I think social media did fail to deliver its primary potential benefit so let’s see how it goes.

Government, especially local governments, cannot dictate to a company that provides a worldwide service on how they must conduct their business. I'm very conservative, but this is too far for me to support. Nobody has to be on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media. It's optional.

Even if this stands in court, all these outlets would need to do is block anybody who lists themselves from the state of Florida. Just refuse to let them create an account, and cancel accounts from anybody in that state.

I almost see you point except that they are engaging in deceit by inviting people in and then throttling communication along political lines and that’s wrong. False advertising is illegal and that what they are doing.
I am excited to see the outcome of this and think it’s worth the effort. We are not seeking to have any expression removed, we just want ours to be able to continue

 

[colfax_m]

Wrong

Social media companies aren’t common carriers, dumb ass.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, we all know the real reason you oppose this law is that you are a ******* NAZI who likes having the opposition censored and doesn't give a damn about freedom of speech.

This isn’t about free speech. It’s about government forcing industry to serve the interests of a political party.

Which is, wait for it, a little fascist.

Right now the tech giants are servicing the interests of the Democrat party.

 

[dblack]

That's all this law requires, other than requiring them to platform political candidates.

LOL - other than that.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong

Social media companies aren’t common carriers, dumb ass.

They claim they are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A State cannot cancel or “nullify” an existing federal law, even by passing one that purports to.

Perhaps not, but a state CAN force the courts to examine the issue.

Conservatives are always talking about the Constitution. Perhaps they should spend more time reading it than talking about it.

Here is part of Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Leftists are always trying to talk about the Constitution, and always end up sounding like a not-too-bright 10-year-old with ADD.

They sound like Stalinists, if you ask me.

Nah. Stalinists usually sound more focused and coherent. Leftists try to mimic that, but end up babbling.

 

[WEATHER53]

So you want freedom of speech restricted.

Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.

No and that’s the lib big lie
Restricting Facebook from censoring speech is not censoring Facebooks speech. It’s prohibiting an Action. This liberal fake contention needs to be disputed.