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

[Faun]

Just as a side-note, it's kind of funny that this law has a special exemption for any company “that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex” of a certain size.

Because, you know, free speech. Or something.

Theme parks are a big business in Florida.

 

[colfax_m]

Just as a side-note, it's kind of funny that this law has a special exemption for any company “that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex” of a certain size.

Because, you know, free speech. Or something.

right. It’s totally about free speech and also not pissing off companies full of people that donate to our political campaigns.

 

[bripat9643]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The ******* moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How ******* brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

 

[dblack]

Because they aren't arbitrarily removing people.

THEN WHY ARE YOU BITCHING??? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!!

Right... the Ministry of Truth will decide whether it's arbitrary or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Because they aren't arbitrarily removing people.

THEN WHY ARE YOU BITCHING??? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!!

Because this law creates unconstitutional requirements on speech.

Nope.

 

[Faun]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The ******* moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How ******* brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

 

[WEATHER53]

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?

Just have a look at Facebook's mission statement.

https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?p...ur new,communities and bring people together.
I am certain you will find the same happy, kumbaya lines of complete bullshit from Twitter too.

If the situation were reversed, I can HONESTLY say that I would NEVER support a social media platform falsely purporting to be a place for EVERYONE with a mission statement repeating the phrase "bring people closer together" while arbitrarily killing discourse and REMOVING people. I mean, how many ******* times can Zucky repeat that phrase?

The truth, as you yourself have admitted, it that Facebook is nothing but a propaganda tool for the left and the globalists.

THAT is deception, and it has MONUMENTALLY devastating consequences to everyone.

This legislation is the least intrusive method of ensuring the consumer (and yes, they are legally considered consumers and social media is legally considered trade) is well informed of social media's agenda.

Giving individuals recourse via the Courts forces social media to be honest in their practices so individuals are not deceptively propagandized, which we can assume would be against their will (I don't know of anyone who would willfully allow themselves to be indoctrinated without full disclosure).

The goal of any lover of freedom should be honest discourse or disclosure.

Now, Facebook, for example, when conducting business with Floridians, cannot make up bullshit and arbitrarily repress certain individual or ideas WITHOUT DISCLOSING the objectives or agenda (which is deceptive trade).

So tell me. How is that anti-liberty? You think Facebook has a right to deceive the entire world without recourse? You thing ANYONE should be allow to do so?

Again, Facebook can still do as Facebook chooses. But Facebook cannot be deceptive about it.

Easily the best and most fact based summation so far.

liberals need the playing field slanted in their favor because impartiality doesn’t Not favor them

 

[bripat9643]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

 

[bripat9643]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The ******* moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How ******* brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

 

[Faun]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

 

[Faun]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The ******* moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How ******* brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

LOL

By definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not. So what did we lose?

 

[bripat9643]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The ******* moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How ******* brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

LOL

By definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not. So what did we lose?

Then Facebook can be sued, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

If it doesn't apply to them, they why did Facebook cite it to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

 

[meaner gene]

Where does it say a "platform" is not a common carrier?

The same place that says a tomato is not a suspension bridge.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the situation were reversed, I can HONESTLY say that I would NEVER support a social media platform falsely purporting to be a place for EVERYONE with a mission statement repeating the phrase "bring people closer together" while arbitrarily killing discourse and REMOVING people.

Neither would I. But the question isn't whether you'd support them. The question is whether you'd support state regulation like the crap Desantis signed. If things were reversed, I'm quite sure that most of the participants in this discussion would flip.

The truth, as you yourself have admitted, it that Facebook is nothing but a propaganda tool for the left and the globalists.

Actually, I said nothing like that. Facebook is a tool for selling internet users to advertisers.

Giving individuals recourse via the Courts forces ...

Individuals already have "recourse via the Courts", and that's not what this law establishes. This law dictates new requirements forcing social media sites to function as propaganda vehicles for politicians. It also requires that their moderation practices meet with government approval.

The goal of any lover of freedom should be honest discourse or disclosure.

I am. I just don't want government in charge of deciding what is "honest discourse" and what isn't.

I only disagree with you on the point of individuals having legal recourse. Prior to this law it was questionable.

I don't want government in charge of "honest discourse" either. That's why litigation is the appropriate method, on a case-by-case basis. It's also the best way to get Facebook to be candid with users.

 

[dblack]

Right? Who da fuk needs a voice anyway (except you and big tech) ?!?!?!

Social media platforms are private property. You play by their rules or you don’t play at all.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Yeah...it'd be nice if that's all they wanted.

Meh...it's not. They want all opposition silenced. Why do you think they kicked Parler off the servers?
Why do you think they are trying to indict Trump?

Why is Fascism so hard for you to understand?

In this thread you praise the gov't for interfering in private business. And in another, that you started, you complain that the gov't is destroying the free market.

You need to pick one.

Is there any doubt that nearly everyone in the thread would flip if the situation were reversed?

 

[dblack]

I only disagree with you on the point of individuals having legal recourse. Prior to this law it was questionable.

I don't want government in charge of "honest discourse" either. That's why litigation is the appropriate method, on a case-by-case basis. It's also the best way to get Facebook to be candid with users.

What currently prevents legal recourse? What about the Fla law would change that?

 

[meaner gene]

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

And if you click on your lick defining "common carrier"

common carrier

The term “common carrier” or “carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this chapter; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.

Before you read all of that, start with the part where is says they are engaged as "a common carrier for hire"

Otherwise section 230 does not apply.

 

[colfax_m]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

You posted section 202. Not 230. You realize that different sections of law apply to different organizations.

 

[meaner gene]

You posted section 202. Not 230. You realize that different sections of law apply to different organizations.

Actually section 202 links to the definition of "common carrier" he's attempting to say applies to facebook.

But the definition linked to, says that common carrier are those "for hire".

He actually provided proof that facebook isn't a common carrier because they give away their access for free.