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

[meaner gene]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Only if you define ideology as a belief in false statements.

That "flat earth" content can't be infringed upon.

 

[Faun]

The amazing thing is that DeSantis & the Florida Republican legislature knows very well that this law will not stand up in court.

They are taking the Republican base for fools once again!!!

Is there no end to the stupidity?

It doesn't have to succeed in court -- it only has to garner them more votes.

 

[WEATHER53]

That right can be restricted when you invite them in to begin with

True, like if you rent an apartment, and you take in a roommate. Once you accept the roommate in, he then has some rights to his existence in that apartment.

Also. You invite the office to your home. You find that one if the couples is interracial and you ask them to leave. You have NO prescribed Right to do that based solely on the fact that it is your private property. And rights you may have had, if any, you waived with the invitation which was without stipulations. Facebook is not stipulating when they seek your participation and then imposed undisclosed stipulations after you join. That is not legal.

 

[Faun]

They will stop it themselves once they start losing millions of dollars to lawsuits every day.

They just won't pay it. Then Florida will have to spend millions on litigation which I'm sure most of the citizens won't favor, because no court in the country would enforce such fines.

They will pay it. They wont have a choice.

Of course they have a choice. Choice a) pay it. Choice b) don't pay it. Choice c) fight it in court.

My guess is they will opt for choice c.

Yep, a hundred plus cases per day. Their legal bills will crush them.

They'll have only one lawsuit to fight. The first one they take to court will result with the Judicary ruling it's unconstitutional for the government to force a private company from enforcing their terms of service.

 

[bripat9643]

They're not a common carrier, ******* moron. Your own link proves you're an idiot.

And thanks for failing to name the crime you claim exists by banning posters. Which moderator here wasocked up for banning posters?

They claim they are, dumbfuck.

They can "claim" anything. Like Dick Cheney claimed he was a member of the legislative branch. The claim has never been upheld. The closest I found was a dissenting opinion by Clarence Thomas.

Their claim has never been contested in court, dumb ****. The've used to have lawsuits dismissed.

 

[Faun]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

ATT is a common carrier. Facebook is not.

So no, not the same reason.

That's why as an example of a common carrier, struth referrenced AT&T, not Facebook.

 

[bripat9643]

The same can be said about you, based on your replies in this very thread. You a butthurt because now Facebook has some accountability.

That's not what I'm butthurt about. Facebook is a blight. I don't use their website and I encourage others to do likewise. I'll be happy to see them go out of business.

What I am "butthurt" about is the radical expansion of state power over social media. There's basically no opposition to this power grab. And, despite the screeching accusations of certain morons on this board, I see Democrats as the bigger threat. They've never met a regulation they didn't like, and they'd love to establish government "oversight" regarding social media moderation. Political melodrama notwithstanding, they're on your side. In fact, I'll go on record with a long range prediction. IF this law stands in Florida, Democrats will introduce similar legislation at the Federal level before the end of the decade. Probably sooner.

You hate this not out of principle, but because you LOVED the legal means of silencing any opposing views.

Facebook can't silence opposing views. All they can do is delete them from their website. I'm surprised you can't understand the difference.

You're pissed because this law will force Facebook to stop lying to its users about its moderation policies and the real goals.

Nope. I'm pissed because this law will put every social website (like this one) under the government's thumb.

Facebook gave the communist left and anti-Trumptards a beautiful fiefdom of unchallenged propaganda presented as "FACT," and now they have to tell the ******* truth and THAT pisses YOU off. Be honest.

I am being honest.

Now, can you answer this question honestly? If the situation were reversed. If Facebook were run by the pillow guy, and they were removing BLM posts, banning socialist agitators, etc... And the Democrats proposed the same kind of legislation in retaliation - which side would you be on? Would you be on here making excuses for the law and lauding the sanctity of tort liability? Or would you be calling them on a statist power grab?

We all know that you're a commie who sides with the Democrat Reich.

No one is fooled.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Deceptive trade? There’s no trading going on here.

Okay. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE **** YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
PERIOD!!!

I don't have time, nor do I care enough to educate you on deceptive trade practices. NOBODY who understand deceptive trade practices legislation would EVER say your comment above.

You’re flailing and this little outburst shows how shitty your argument is.
“Waaa!!!! I’m right and instead of making an argument I’m going to call you names!!!!”

Grow up, asshole.

This is 100% about government coming to take the power away from private industry. If the roles were reversed, you’d be threatening to shoot people again.

What exactly is being traded when someone posts on Facebook?

Tell me what you think Deceptive Trade Practices legislation is for.

Start there.

You can go look at Florida's Deceptive Trade Practices Act for starters.

I will wait for you to get caught up before we discuss this further.

Deceptive trade practices are to protect people from getting something different than what they paid for.

What do you think people who post on Facebook pay for?

Show me FROM THE FLORIDA DTPA where it only covers services PAID FOR!!!!

Or, better yet, I will show YOU how YOU are wrong.

Florida DTPA Act

(7) “Consumer” means an individual; child, by and through its parent or legal guardian; business; firm; association; joint venture; partnership; estate; trust; business trust; syndicate; fiduciary; corporation; any commercial entity, however denominated; or any other group or combination.

(8) “Trade or commerce” means the advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing, whether by sale, rental, or otherwise, of any good or service, or any property, whether tangible or intangible, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value, wherever situated. “Trade or commerce” shall include the conduct of any trade or commerce, however denominated, including any nonprofit or not-for-profit person or activity.

(9) “Thing of value” may include, without limitation, any moneys, donation, membership, credential, certificate, prize, award, benefit, license, interest, professional opportunity, or chance of winning.

First, you just ASSUMED the DTPA was ONLY for trade. THEN, you ASSUMED that it was only for paid-for activity.

Do you see a pattern?

You are not qualified to speak on the topic of Florida's DTPA.

 

[bripat9643]

Deceptive trade? There’s no trading going on here.

Okay. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE **** YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
PERIOD!!!

I don't have time, nor do I care enough to educate you on deceptive trade practices. NOBODY who understand deceptive trade practices legislation would EVER say your comment above.

You’re flailing and this little outburst shows how shitty your argument is.
“Waaa!!!! I’m right and instead of making an argument I’m going to call you names!!!!”

Grow up, asshole.

This is 100% about government coming to take the power away from private industry. If the roles were reversed, you’d be threatening to shoot people again.

What exactly is being traded when someone posts on Facebook?

Tell me what you think Deceptive Trade Practices legislation is for.

Start there.

You can go look at Florida's Deceptive Trade Practices Act for starters.

I will wait for you to get caught up before we discuss this further.

Deceptive trade practices are to protect people from getting something different than what they paid for.

What do you think people who post on Facebook pay for?

They pay by providing Facebook with demographic info they can sell to advertisers, moron.

 

[WEATHER53]

The State of Florida has no jurisdiction over these companies.

However, these companies do have the right to shut down their services for the entire State of Florida.

The State has full jurisdiction over deceptive and undisclosed trade practices

Grasping at straws much?

There is no inalienable or Constitutional right for anyone to have a Facebook account. It's a private company and can set it's own rules for user accounts. If you don't like those rules, then close your account.

Facebook can change those rules as it sees fit. Facebook doesn't allow hateful, false or inflammatory content - and it has the right to determine which posts fit those descriptions. They have a team of independent qualified experts to review the standards. There's nothing 'deceptive or undisclosed' about it.

Vague nebulous and non specific
It is unpermitted by numerous communications statues . You have got to stop offering the silly notion that private business can do what they want. See their business is communication; they rely and seek public participation to exist. Very similar to the telephone they may be able to prohibit calls about blowing up a bridge but they can’t kick off a President and his supporters for being supporters and supported. If they made it a precondition before you hit the I Agree that favorable or supportive comments about Trump are not allowed then it could be a different matter. They don’t do that. They invite you in wide arms wide open and then throttle you later on. That’s what this will correct.

 

[meaner gene]

Hummmmm.....

What would be the role of facebook or twitter, or any other carrier, of somebody posts, and it going viral, that it was UFO's going around experimenting on people, injecting them with an experimental germ that mimics COVID.

And that's why the US has started releasing military video of UFO's.

That the space aliens were finding out how much the earthlings could be controlled, and how gullible they were to their politicians telling them to do something.

 

[bripat9643]

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

So just to be clear, you think stopping fraud is "victimhood."

My God your ass must just burn from the hypocrisy. You impeached the President TWICE for that accusation you stupid ****

FAUX believe pointing out any crime committed by the leftwing is "victimhood."

LOLOL

There's no crime, ******* moron.

Sure there is.

Name the crime, ******* moron....

violation of their common carrier status.

LOLOL

They're not a common carrier, ******* moron. Your own link proves you're an idiot.

And thanks for failing to name the crime you claim exists by banning posters. Which moderator here wasocked up for banning posters?

They claim they are, dumbfuck.

Nope, they don't. They're not claiming that just because you're too retarded to comprehend the difference between rule 230 from common carrier.

Your link to that article says nothing about common carriers. It speaks about rule 230. And my link to rule 230 says nothing about common carriers. Even worse for you, Facebook doesn't fit the description of a common carrier.

Rule 230 only covers common carriers, you ******* moron.

Pretending to be a dumbass doesn't make a convincing argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Hummmmm.....

What would be the role of facebook or twitter, or any other carrier, of somebody posts, and it going viral, that it was UFO's going around experimenting on people, injecting them with an experimental germ that mimics COVID.

And that's why the US has started releasing military video of UFO's.

That the space aliens were finding out how much the earthlings could be controlled, and how gullible they were to their politicians telling them to do something.

What the **** are you even taking about?

 

[bripat9643]

Kind of like you making excuses for and looking the other way, on the complete shitting on all opposing views via the biggest form of person-to-person communication since the ******* telephone. EVERY claim you make about this topic can come right back at you.

Market size should not be the issue, as long as they are not using anti-competitive means. You can't force the biggest airline (which is a common carrier) to go to a city they don't want to go to.

That is exactly the rational they used to break up standard oil: market size.

 

[meaner gene]

The claim has never been upheld. The closest I found was a dissenting opinion by Clarence Thomas.

Their claim has never been contested in court, dumb ****. The've used to have lawsuits dismissed.

It didn't need to be contested since it was false. It was never considered or taken seriously except by the fringe like Clarence Thomas, who opinion states that Facebook, Google, etc at NOT covered by the definition of common carrier.

 

[WEATHER53]

Giving even a private entity absolute power over its customers is the same as Communist dictatorship, excused by the same slippery reasoning that the Communists used.

Not really because people who were in Communist countries had no choice because they couldn't freely leave. You can leave any social media you wish at any time.

Leaving or not participating stops short. This method of censorship needs to be stopped. Two way street and level playing field to be an equal opportunity for All. Equality is Not a one way street .

 

[bripat9643]

Even worse for you, Facebook doesn't fit the description of a common carrier.

Clarence Thomas thinks that they should be considered a common carrier. But that was a minority opinion.

Justice Thomas suggests tech platforms qualify as 'common carrier...

The fact that Thomas is trying to make them a common carrier, proves that they are NOT currently a common carrier.

They claimed they were a common carrier in court, dumbass.

 

[Godboy]

They will stop it themselves once they start losing millions of dollars to lawsuits every day.

They just won't pay it. Then Florida will have to spend millions on litigation which I'm sure most of the citizens won't favor, because no court in the country would enforce such fines.

They will pay it. They wont have a choice.

Of course they have a choice. Choice a) pay it. Choice b) don't pay it. Choice c) fight it in court.

My guess is they will opt for choice c.

Yep, a hundred plus cases per day. Their legal bills will crush them.

They'll have only one lawsuit to fight. The first one they take to court will result with the Judicary ruling it's unconstitutional for the government to force a private company from enforcing their terms of service.

Doubtful.

 

[Hum Dinger]

That right can be restricted when you invite them in to begin with

True, like if you rent an apartment, and you take in a roommate. Once you accept the roommate in, he then has some rights to his existence in that apartment.

Also. You invite the office to your home. You find that one if the couples is interracial and you ask them to leave. You have NO prescribed Right to do that based solely on the fact that it is your private property. And rights you may have had, if any, you waived with the invitation which was without stipulations. Facebook is not stipulating when they seek your participation and then imposed undisclosed stipulations after you join. That is not legal.

So you're saying that companies can not EVER change the terms of their agreements?

You are free to terminate your association with them if you do not like the new terms.

What planet are you from? Obviously, not Earth!

 

[bripat9643]

The claim has never been upheld. The closest I found was a dissenting opinion by Clarence Thomas.

Their claim has never been contested in court, dumb ****. The've used to have lawsuits dismissed.

It didn't need to be contested since it was false. It was never considered or taken seriously except by the fringe like Clarence Thomas, who opinion states that Facebook, Google, etc at NOT covered by the definition of common carrier.

Facebook claimed it was a common carrier in court, you ******* dumbass.