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

[Hutch Starskey]

republicans strike again. Now they are taking first amendment rights from social media.

They are regulating the internet. And violating the first amendment to do it. They are also violating section 230 of the communications decency act.

What happened to their screaming that business owners have the right to decide who they serve or do business with? That was a lie too.

They are showing that their hate for regulations was all a lie. They love regulating business just not in a responsible way.

Their beliefs are of convenience not real beliefs.

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would stop Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring politicians such as Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

I'm thinking youre a little confused how the 1st A works,,,

Nope. You are.

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

Tell that to the Citizens United and
“corporations are people, my friend” crowd.

 

[dblack]

You don't think we're on the verge of civil war because of the CLEARLY uneven behavior of Facebook?

Facebook might, in fact, be pushing us to the brink of civil war. But not because of partisan censorship.

Facebook (and to be clear, this applies to most other media platforms as well) sells fear. It pumps out a continuous stream of it. It contains algorithms that tune your fear-stream to push your buttons, creating your own personal nightmare vision of the world - all to keep you freaked out ("engaged" is the term they prefer) and looking at their page, and clicking on their ads. The algorithms don't care about the side effects of all this fear. They just do whatever it takes to keep your attention. Even if it means pushing us to the brink of civil war.

 

[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?

Don’t know. Ask them.

You're the one claiming OKeefe's piece is not credible. You ask them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You don't think we're on the verge of civil war because of the CLEARLY uneven behavior of Facebook?

Facebook might, in fact, be pushing us to the brink of civil war. But not because of partisan censorship.

Facebook (and to be clear, this applies to most other media platforms as well) sells fear. It pumps out a continuous stream of it. It contains algorithms that tune your fear-stream to push your buttons, creating your own personal nightmare vision of the world - all to keep you freaked out ("engaged" is the term they prefer) and looking on their page, and looking on their ads. The algorithms don't care about the side effects of all this fear. They just do whatever it takes to keep your attention. Even if it means pushing us to the brink of civil war.

I agree. I have seen videos from former facebook coders confirming. It's how facebook makes money.

 

[progressive hunter]

republicans strike again. Now they are taking first amendment rights from social media.

They are regulating the internet. And violating the first amendment to do it. They are also violating section 230 of the communications decency act.

What happened to their screaming that business owners have the right to decide who they serve or do business with? That was a lie too.

They are showing that their hate for regulations was all a lie. They love regulating business just not in a responsible way.

Their beliefs are of convenience not real beliefs.

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would stop Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring politicians such as Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

I'm thinking youre a little confused how the 1st A works,,,

Nope. You are.

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

Tell that to the Citizens United and
“corporations are people, my friend” crowd.

just like a dem to defend corps.

 

[colfax_m]

You're the one claiming OKeefe's piece is not credible. You ask them.

It's not credible because OKeefe isn't credible.

That's the thing about credibility, it affects everything you do.

 

[progressive hunter]

You're the one claiming OKeefe's piece is not credible. You ask them.

It's not credible because OKeefe isn't credible.

That's the thing about credibility, it affects everything you do.

hes ever last a law suit and only post other peoples words,, so he far more credible than CNN at this point,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're the one claiming OKeefe's piece is not credible. You ask them.

It's not credible because OKeefe isn't credible.

That's the thing about credibility, it affects everything you do.

So, in you opinion, just because Okeefe is not credible to you, anything he produces, despite your inability to refute such production, is automatically not credible?

That is completely illogical.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Citizens United dealt with outlawing political speech by individuals. McCain-Feingold reserved political speech for the press and outlawed speech by individuals in collective Political Action Committees. A clear violation of the 1st and an affront to the concept of citizen government. It was a power play by your Reich to absolutely control what Americans could know before an election.

Tell the truth, you've never read the decision, have you?

Citizens United v. FEC (Supreme Court) - FEC.gov

FEC Record litigation summary published February 2010: Citizens United v. FEC (Supreme Court)

www.fec.gov

In-Kind Contributions by the consolidated tech monopoly to further the Reich deals with the suppression of candidates opposed of by the Reich. By silencing the opposition, the monopoly provides effectively free advertising for their Reich.

If the measure passes, the Reich will ultimately lose. Yes, there are many corrupt Reich judges who will uphold challenges, but ultimately it will go to the SCOTUS where it will be upheld, since it's black letter law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

republicans strike again. Now they are taking first amendment rights from social media.

They are regulating the internet. And violating the first amendment to do it. They are also violating section 230 of the communications decency act.

What happened to their screaming that business owners have the right to decide who they serve or do business with? That was a lie too.

They are showing that their hate for regulations was all a lie. They love regulating business just not in a responsible way.

Their beliefs are of convenience not real beliefs.

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would stop Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring politicians such as Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

Great news!

Banning a sitting President was the height of arrogance.

Fear, however, that one state (or even a group of states) cannot successfully challenge Big Tech.

The law will eventually end up at the Supreme Court, whose 9 members will be shaking in their boots if they rule the law constitutional -- so they won't!

At least they will put out some guidance on the subject. Then, states can act accordingly to make big tech behave.

At least they will put out some guidance on the subject. Then, states can act accordingly to make big tech behave.

How would Florida state law be enforced against a business not located or licensed within the state? IOW, what recourse would the state have if Facebook were not compliant?

 

[colfax_m]

So, in you opinion, just because Okeefe is not credible to you, anything he produces, despite your inability to refute such production, is automatically not credible?

That is completely illogical.

Of course it's logical. Why would I expect him to produce credible products after a career of producing misleading and agenda driven content?

I wouldn't and neither should you. It's like a doctor spends his entire career pitching literal snake oil for ailments and then comes out with a new product saying it'll cure cancer. Are you going to believe his new product cures cancer because you can't refute it or are you going to rely on his credibility?

 

[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.

Citizens United dealt with outlawing political speech by individuals. McCain-Feingold reserved political speech for the press and outlawed speech by individuals in collective Political Action Committees. A clear violation of the 1st and an affront to the concept of citizen government. It was a power play by your Reich to absolutely control what Americans could know before an election.

Tell the truth, you've never read the decision, have you?

Citizens United v. FEC (Supreme Court) - FEC.gov

FEC Record litigation summary published February 2010: Citizens United v. FEC (Supreme Court)

www.fec.gov

In-Kind Contributions by the consolidated tech monopoly to further the Reich deals with the suppression of candidates opposed of by the Reich. By silencing the opposition, the monopoly provides effectively free advertising for there Reich.

If the measure passes, the Reich will ultimately lose. Yes, there are many corrupt Reich judges who will uphold challenges, but ultimately it will go to the SCOTUS where it will be upheld, since it's black letter law.

Yes, I've read the decision which is why I know you don't know what you're talking about.

You also probably didn't read the link you just posted because the first sentence of your link proves you wrong.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, in you opinion, just because Okeefe is not credible to you, anything he produces, despite your inability to refute such production, is automatically not credible?

That is completely illogical.

O'Keefe is more credible than any and all of the Baghdad Bob's of the Reich media.

"Lyin" Brian Stelter, "Rabid" Rachel Madcow, "who the fuck is" don lemon, "Fredo" Cuomo, et al.

It's hilarious the way the Nazis think they are somehow arbiters of "credibility.'

 

[dblack]

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

I disagree it's the exact same argument.

The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.

Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.

These are totally difference causes of action.

Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."

Sometimes differences really are different.

It’s not always easy to tell them apart, but if you think about it for five seconds it’s apparent.

No one would care if the baker refused to bake the cake for the couple because they were verbally abusive but everyone is up in arms because Trump is kicked off Twitter after acting like an asshole for years.

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.

In you view, perhaps – but it does matter.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit brick and mortar businesses open to the general public from discriminating based on sexual orientation are perfectly lawful consistent with the Commerce Clause.

In US v. Heart of Atlanta Motel private property owners argued that public accommodations laws violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association – the Supreme Court held that that was not the case.

Yep. And they were wrong. It happens.

We need to stop defending bad ideas. Especially as it becomes more and more apparent just how bad they are. Libertarians have been telling you for decades that the legal premises and precedents of civil rights law were dangerous. We pointed out that your conception of civil rights (namely the presumed "right" to be treated equally by others) was incoherent and would be used against you. And here we are.

The freedom to be homosexual and marry whomever you want, for example, doesn't imply the power to force others to respect or accommodate you. Just as freedom of speech doesn't imply the power to force others to listen to you. Or post your shit on their website.

Now, as your political enemies are adopting your tactics and using them against you, you have the perfect "teachable moment". The perfect opportunity to recognize a mistake and correct it. But you're not paying attention.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course it's logical. Why would I expect him to produce credible products after a career of producing misleading and agenda driven content?

I wouldn't and neither should you. It's like a doctor spends his entire career pitching literal snake oil for ailments and then comes out with a new product saying it'll cure cancer. Are you going to believe his new product cures cancer because you can't refute it or are you going to rely on his credibility?

You get that in your analogy your would be a voodoo witch doctor criticizing the Western Doctor.

Clean up your own house, Nazi.

Also, you never can quite come up with anything Veritas got wrong.

I know they make you angry, but that's because they expose you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Look at the little Nazi democrats bitching and crying because they're open season banning conservatives because they don't want their opinions heard is being challenged. What a pack of filthy little shyster commies.

Democrats are the party of trash.

Don’t fret. The pillow guy will have his “super freedomy” platform up any day now.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like Facebook was intimidated by DeSantis’ threats.

They just continued Trumps ban

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Silencing happens when the monopoly moves to infringe on the competition as it did with Parler. Every Monopoly node, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon Web Hosting acted in unison to savage a competitor who was threatening the absolute control on information by the monopoly.

What this is is in-kind contributions to the Reich and Reich candidates by the monopoly.

 

[colfax_m]

Silencing happens when the monopoly moves to infringe on the competition as it did with Parler. Every Monopoly node, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon Web Hosting acted in unison to savage a competitor who was threatening the absolute control on information by the monopoly.

What this is is in-kind contributions to the Reich and Reich candidates by the monopoly.

AWS is not a monopoly. There's dozens if not hundreds of web serving platforms, not to mention that there's nothing preventing Parler from building their own servers. Monopolies are damn near impossible to have on the internet given how open it is.

You could have a point about Apple keeping Parler off their App store and there's serious litigation on more deserving plaintiffs already in the works.

But at the end of the day, there is no monopoly in social media.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Then the Baghdad Bob's of the Reich propaganda corps are free to provide the rest of the story. Which oddly it never does.

Virtually ALL of your posts lack context and exculpatory evidence. You present your side, that's how adults operate.