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

[colfax_m]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

 

[colfax_m]

But, Desantis can do just like you and claim that he is protecting freedom of expression. You can't prove otherwise.

The bill is carving out protections for politicians, specifically. He’s protecting himself and his buddies. Government forcing private corporations to protect their own selfish interests used to be considered oppressive by Republicans.

Hardly outrageous to state factual information on a platform designed to state information.

Yeah, lots of people claim to have “facts” that just aren’t so. I’d have to see a specific example.

The bill punishes the platform from giving a substantial value to one candidate over another. It doesn't protect Desantis and his buddies specifically and would apply to any candidate, regardless of party.

People say what they believe to be true all the time. Again, that's hardly outrageous behavior. You've moved from the example of condemning outrageous Nazi behavior to being the arbiter of truth.

It gives benefits to politicians specifically. Makes them protected above the rest of us. It’s not about freedom of expression, it’s about helping his buddies bedside they’re the only ones who manage to get kicked off.

There is no arbiter of truth. We each manage our own sphere. Facebook cannot declare anything untruthful outside of Facebook.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fucktard, you don't even know what year it's from.

You didn’t answer the question as to whether you’ve read section 230.

Do you think this was written in 1934?
“(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

What does "another information content provider" mean to you?

Also note;

{Section 230 immunity is not unlimited. The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1)), electronic privacy violations (§230(e)(4)) and intellectual property claims (§230(e)(2)).[9] There is also no immunity from state laws that are consistent with 230(e)(3) though state criminal laws have been held preempted in cases such as Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna[10] and Voicenet Communications, Inc. v. Corbett[11] (agreeing that "the plain language of the CDA provides ... immunity from inconsistent state criminal laws"). }

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It gives benefits to politicians specifically. Makes them protected above the rest of us. It’s not about freedom of expression, it’s about helping his buddies bedside they’re the only ones who manage to get kicked off.

Campaign finance laws apply here, not benefits to politicians over the rest of us. Completely separate issue.

There is no arbiter of truth. We each manage our own sphere. Facebook cannot declare anything untruthful outside of Facebook.

And a hotel cannot affect certain people outside the hotel. And a baker cannot affect anything outside their cake shop.

 

[colfax_m]

Fucktard, you don't even know what year it's from.

You didn’t answer the question as to whether you’ve read section 230.

Do you think this was written in 1934?
“(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

What does "another information content provider" mean to you?

Also note;

{Section 230 immunity is not unlimited. The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1)), electronic privacy violations (§230(e)(4)) and intellectual property claims (§230(e)(2)).[9] There is also no immunity from state laws that are consistent with 230(e)(3) though state criminal laws have been held preempted in cases such as Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna[10] and Voicenet Communications, Inc. v. Corbett[11] (agreeing that "the plain language of the CDA provides ... immunity from inconsistent state criminal laws"). }

Another information content provider is a user of a website. Like you, posting on this board.

Be honest with me. Did you ever read section 230 before?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

 

[colfax_m]

Campaign finance laws apply here, not benefits to politicians over the rest of us. Completely separate issue.

Then don’t pretend this is about protecting freedom of expression. It’s about protecting politicians. And no, campaign finance law cannot apply, least if all in a post-Citizens United country. Citizens United protect private expenditures on behalf of candidates.

And a hotel cannot affect certain people outside the hotel. And a baker cannot affect anything outside their cake shop.

And the concept of “arbiter of truth” doesn’t apply to them either, which as the point of my comment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn't really matter in my view. But for the sake of clarity, it was, in fact, the behavior that the baker found offensive. He didn't approve of a man marrying another man. It had nothing to do with "who" they were. It's what they were planning he wanted no part of.

The baker was forced to perform labor (involuntary servitude) which he found morally repugnant. Remember, despite the lies of your Reich, that Masterpiece Cakeshop offered any cake off the shelf and stopped only at doing custom work which violated the 1st Amendment rights of the owner.

I am well aware of your hostility to the 1st and all civil rights, but Mr. Phillips did not refuse service, he simply would not craft custom cakes that defied his faith.

Public forums who claim to be neutral platforms are not tailoring custom work to particular users nor promoting particular agenda.

Your disingenuous hypocrisy is merely ignorance. My positions are consistent in protecting individual liberty from assault - as are yours in assaulting individual liberty.

 

[colfax_m]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

OKeefe has long since lost any credibility as presenting a fair assessment of others.

He is more than welcome to publish and host his own content.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

Oh no, the video is very much still availible.

The tech fascist monopoly drove it from YouTube, but Veritas is self-hosting.

FACEBOOK INSIDER LEAKS: Hours of Video of Zuckerberg & Execs Admitting They Have ‘Too Much Power’ … FB Wants to ‘Work ... with [Biden] on Some of Their Top Priorities’ … ‘Biden Issued a Number of Exec Orders…We as a Company Really Care Quite Deeply A

Investigating and exposing corruption in both public and private institutions.

www.projectveritas.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

OKeefe has long since lost any credibility as presenting a fair assessment of others.

He is more than welcome to publish and host his own content.

Veritas has plenty of credibility, CNN and NBC, not so much.

 

[colfax_m]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

Oh no, the video is very much still availible.

The tech fascist monopoly drove it from YouTube, but Veritas is self-hosting.

FACEBOOK INSIDER LEAKS: Hours of Video of Zuckerberg & Execs Admitting They Have ‘Too Much Power’ … FB Wants to ‘Work ... with [Biden] on Some of Their Top Priorities’ … ‘Biden Issued a Number of Exec Orders…We as a Company Really Care Quite Deeply A

Investigating and exposing corruption in both public and private institutions.

www.projectveritas.com

Well, there goes the complaint that people are being “silenced”.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

OKeefe has long since lost any credibility as presenting a fair assessment of others.

He is more than welcome to publish and host his own content.

Are you saying that because you believe Okeefe has no credibility that the people on the video allegedly from Facebook are not, and that they didn't say the things the video shows them saying?

Okeefe's credibility is irrelevant when the people speaking admit things, no?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Another information content provider is a user of a website. Like you, posting on this board.

Be honest with me. Did you ever read section 230 before?

Duh,

The difference is this board actually IS a public forum, unlike Fascistbook and Twatter, who are publishers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

Oh no, the video is very much still availible.

The tech fascist monopoly drove it from YouTube, but Veritas is self-hosting.

FACEBOOK INSIDER LEAKS: Hours of Video of Zuckerberg & Execs Admitting They Have ‘Too Much Power’ … FB Wants to ‘Work ... with [Biden] on Some of Their Top Priorities’ … ‘Biden Issued a Number of Exec Orders…We as a Company Really Care Quite Deeply A

Investigating and exposing corruption in both public and private institutions.

www.projectveritas.com

Well, there goes the complaint that people are being “silenced”.

That's not the complaint. They are being silenced on platforms.

And there goes the complaint that gays are not getting cakes baked...

 

[colfax_m]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

OKeefe has long since lost any credibility as presenting a fair assessment of others.

He is more than welcome to publish and host his own content.

Are you saying that because you believe Okeefe has no credibility that the people on the video allegedly from Facebook are not, and that they didn't say the things the video shows them saying?

Okeefe's credibility is irrelevant when the people speaking admit things, no?

It’s quite important because lack of context or exculpatory information being withheld is part of OKeefe’s MO.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

OKeefe has long since lost any credibility as presenting a fair assessment of others.

He is more than welcome to publish and host his own content.

Are you saying that because you believe Okeefe has no credibility that the people on the video allegedly from Facebook are not, and that they didn't say the things the video shows them saying?

Okeefe's credibility is irrelevant when the people speaking admit things, no?

It’s quite important because lack of context or exculpatory information being withheld is part of OKeefe’s MO.

So, what are the Facebook monitors alleging OKeefe withheld?

 

[colfax_m]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

Oh no, the video is very much still availible.

The tech fascist monopoly drove it from YouTube, but Veritas is self-hosting.

FACEBOOK INSIDER LEAKS: Hours of Video of Zuckerberg & Execs Admitting They Have ‘Too Much Power’ … FB Wants to ‘Work ... with [Biden] on Some of Their Top Priorities’ … ‘Biden Issued a Number of Exec Orders…We as a Company Really Care Quite Deeply A

Investigating and exposing corruption in both public and private institutions.

www.projectveritas.com

Well, there goes the complaint that people are being “silenced”.

That's not the complaint. They are being silenced on platforms.

And there goes the complaint that gays are not getting cakes baked...

I never complained that gays aren’t being baked cakes. The complaint was that gays are being discriminated against by specific people.

Being silenced means that your ability to speak is removed. It’s emotionally charged and not honest.

 

[colfax_m]

Here is ONE example.

Good article, but the information is more complicated than you’re admitting to.

The word “men” wasn’t banned, it was saying that men are trash or scum. Facebook has rules against applying negative characteristics to an entire gender. I don’t think that’s so controversial. The main thrust of the article is that it’s not equally applied, which is a fair criticism but given how these things are so hard to moderate given the sheer volume of content of Facebook, it’s more of a problem with computer algorithms than anything else.

I would show you the Project Veritas undercover video of Facebook monitors proudly admitting to banning "conservative" content and "Trump supporters" for any reason they could come up with, but the video is no longer available. Funny how that works out, ain't it?

OKeefe has long since lost any credibility as presenting a fair assessment of others.

He is more than welcome to publish and host his own content.

Are you saying that because you believe Okeefe has no credibility that the people on the video allegedly from Facebook are not, and that they didn't say the things the video shows them saying?

Okeefe's credibility is irrelevant when the people speaking admit things, no?

It’s quite important because lack of context or exculpatory information being withheld is part of OKeefe’s MO.

So, what are the Facebook monitors alleging OKeefe withheld?

Don’t know. Ask them.

 

[colfax_m]

Another information content provider is a user of a website. Like you, posting on this board.

Be honest with me. Did you ever read section 230 before?

Duh,

The difference is this board actually IS a public forum, unlike Fascistbook and Twatter, who are publishers.

You are still avoiding the question as to whether you’ve ever read section 230 before I showed it to you.

Did you really think it was written in the 1930s?