Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis To Sign Bill Banning Social Media ‘Deplatforming’

[hadit]

What if they not acting like assholes? (like we have seen) What if the "platform" simply disagrees with the message? Please tell me you don't believe the monitoring has been even-handed.

It’s still up to the platform to decide what is and isn’t appropriate for their platform. They are after all footing the bill for the entire service.

No, they are selling ad space, which means they're no more "footing the bill for the entire service" than your local CBS TV station foots the entire bill for what they broadcast.

 

[colfax_m]

No, they are selling ad space, which means they're no more "footing the bill for the entire service" than your local CBS TV station foots the entire bill for what they broadcast.

Well, yeah. The TV station also foots the bill.

Just because Twitter has a source of revenue to fund their operations, doesn’t mean they aren’t paying the bills. They absolutely are. The point of me saying Twitter is footing the bill is to point out that Twitter is the owner and operator, through their own expense, using their own money.

If you pay for it, you control it.

 

[WEATHER53]

The freedom is not the freedom of Facebook to do what they want. The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

Facebook owns the site
They make the rules

If you can’t follow the rules, you get banned
Just like USMB

Apples and oranges
USMB does not deleted posts and posters who say they support Trump
That”discretion” is being illegally applied by Facebook

 

[hadit]

No, they are selling ad space, which means they're no more "footing the bill for the entire service" than your local CBS TV station foots the entire bill for what they broadcast.

Well, yeah. The TV station also foots the bill.

Just because Twitter has a source of revenue to fund their operations, doesn’t mean they aren’t paying the bills. They absolutely are. The point of me saying Twitter is footing the bill is to point out that Twitter is the owner and operator, through their own expense, using their own money.

And Twitter is beholden to those who buy ad space. If they start losing subscribers and ad revenue because of their political stance, they will suddenly discover the virtue of being evenhanded.

 

[rightwinger]

USMB does not deleted posts and posters who say they support Trump
That”discretion” is being illegally applied by Facebook

Neither does Facebook and Twitter

 

[WEATHER53]

The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

If you invite someone in, that does not remove your right to ask them to leave when you so choose.

However their conduct would have to be generally recognized as improper or you would be opening yourself up to discriminatory liability

 

[colfax_m]

And Twitter is beholden to those who buy ad space. If they start losing subscribers and ad revenue because of their political stance, they will suddenly discover the virtue of being evenhanded.

I almost entirely agree. I probably wouldn’t use the world beholden but rather dependent.

Twitter loses ad revenue because advertisers don’t want to have their products associated with online harassment or fringe conspiracy theories.

Twitter is the one that decides what content is best for their business. There’s already a mechanism here, and it has nothing to do with government telling Twitter what to do.

 

[WEATHER53]

USMB does not deleted posts and posters who say they support Trump
That”discretion” is being illegally applied by Facebook

Neither does Facebook and Twitter

Absolutely incorrect and in fact the core of discussions like this
Who and what they deleted was almost always pro Trump or anti Biden. Everything in the world but even handed application

 

[colfax_m]

However their conduct would have to be generally recognized as improper or you would be opening yourself up to discriminatory liability

Not necessarily. For instance, say you run a forum about football. You’d be perfectly justified in removing no objectionable material that simply has nothing to do with the topic.

As for discrimination, I’m also pretty unsure. For starters, political affiliation is not a federally protected class and I’m extremely unsure if social media can be considered a public accommodation.

 

[rightwinger]

USMB does not deleted posts and posters who say they support Trump
That”discretion” is being illegally applied by Facebook

Neither does Facebook and Twitter

Absolutely incorrect and in fact the core of discussions like this
Who and what they deleted was almost always pro Trump or anti Biden. Everything in the world but even handed application

OK then

Show where anyone has been banned from Facebook or Twitter for saying they support Trump

 

[WEATHER53]

USMB does not deleted posts and posters who say they support Trump
That”discretion” is being illegally applied by Facebook

Neither does Facebook and Twitter

Absolutely incorrect and in fact the core of discussions like this
Who and what they deleted was almost always pro Trump or anti Biden. Everything in the world but even handed application

OK then

Show where anyone has been banned from Facebook or Twitter for saying they support Trump

Trump himself was banned for supporting himself
You loons try to justify that he was”lying” but Facebook does not exist to play mommy and decide and censor what comments and information we are to receive. We are big boys, we can ferret all that out.

 

[WEATHER53]

However their conduct would have to be generally recognized as improper or you would be opening yourself up to discriminatory liability

Not necessarily. For instance, say you run a forum about football. You’d be perfectly justified in removing no objectionable material that simply has nothing to do with the topic.

As for discrimination, I’m also pretty unsure. For starters, political affiliation is not a federally protected class and I’m extremely unsure if social media can be considered a public accommodation.

Social media is essentially a public utility of information and opinion exchange. Facebook is saying “if we don’t agree with your opinions or experiences then we won’t allow it to appear here”

 

[dblack]

However their conduct would have to be generally recognized as improper or you would be opening yourself up to discriminatory liability

Not necessarily. For instance, say you run a forum about football. You’d be perfectly justified in removing no objectionable material that simply has nothing to do with the topic.

As for discrimination, I’m also pretty unsure. For starters, political affiliation is not a federally protected class and I’m extremely unsure if social media can be considered a public accommodation.

Social media is essentially a public utility of information and opinion exchange. Facebook is saying “if we don’t agree with your opinions or experiences then we won’t allow it to appear here”

No. It is not a public utility. That's just an excuse for those who want to control it.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Censorship is the tool of tyrants and despots.
The Dems are a threat to our democracy*.

 

[WEATHER53]

However their conduct would have to be generally recognized as improper or you would be opening yourself up to discriminatory liability

Not necessarily. For instance, say you run a forum about football. You’d be perfectly justified in removing no objectionable material that simply has nothing to do with the topic.

As for discrimination, I’m also pretty unsure. For starters, political affiliation is not a federally protected class and I’m extremely unsure if social media can be considered a public accommodation.

Social media is essentially a public utility of information and opinion exchange. Facebook is saying “if we don’t agree with your opinions or experiences then we won’t allow it to appear here”

No. It is not a public utility. That's just an excuse for those who want to control it.

They were created from and have prospered from the utilization by the public. Now they want to control the expressions in a Very One Sided Manner

 

[dblack]

However their conduct would have to be generally recognized as improper or you would be opening yourself up to discriminatory liability

Not necessarily. For instance, say you run a forum about football. You’d be perfectly justified in removing no objectionable material that simply has nothing to do with the topic.

As for discrimination, I’m also pretty unsure. For starters, political affiliation is not a federally protected class and I’m extremely unsure if social media can be considered a public accommodation.

Social media is essentially a public utility of information and opinion exchange. Facebook is saying “if we don’t agree with your opinions or experiences then we won’t allow it to appear here”

No. It is not a public utility. That's just an excuse for those who want to control it.

They were created from and have prospered from the utilization by the public. Now they want to control the expressions in a Very One Sided Manner

The same horseshit excuses liberals use when they want a piece of the action.

 

[BlindBoo]

Censorship is the tool of tyrants and despots.
The Dems are a threat to our democracy*.

Banana Republicans want to force Social Media to publish Dr. Trumpensteins "Big Lie" to further their fascist agenda.

 

[WEATHER53]

Censorship is the tool of tyrants and despots.
The Dems are a threat to our democracy*.

Banana Republicans want to force Social Media to publish Dr. Trumpensteins "Big Lie" to further their fascist agenda.

The false presumption being that the public cannot distinguish true from false so Nanny Facebook needs to do it for us Plus make sure Trump supporting statements. Including his own, are removed for “our own safety, health and well being”
There is that insidious statement being misapplied again

 

[BlindBoo]

Censorship is the tool of tyrants and despots.
The Dems are a threat to our democracy*.

Banana Republicans want to force Social Media to publish Dr. Trumpensteins "Big Lie" to further their fascist agenda.

The false presumption being that the public cannot distinguish true from false so Nanny Facebook needs to do it for us Plus make sure Trump supporting statements. Including his own, are removed for “our own safety, health and well being”
There is that insidious statement being misapplied again

They had no problem publishing most of his lies throughout his term as well as his failed bid for re-election. It was only after his lies helped incite the violent attack on the Senate and The House of Representatives that he was banned.

 

[colfax_m]

Social media is essentially a public utility of information and opinion exchange. Facebook is saying “if we don’t agree with your opinions or experiences then we won’t allow it to appear here”

There's no characteristics of social media which would qualify it as a public utility in any way shape or form.

Are we really so lame as a society that we see Facebook access on the same par as electricity? FFS. Some people need to get a life.