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

So just to be clear, if the electric company cuts your service for being a leftist, you don't have a problem with that.

Sure you don't, fascist. You're just for it because you're a Nazi and it's being used to silence your opposition.

Facebook, Google, et al can set up their own networks to provide their services. THEN they can deny service however they want. But they both decided to use taxpayer funded delivery systems, so they need to deliver their services to anyone who wants them
Electric companies are classified as utilities, retard. The internet isn’t even classified as such and when is (I think should be) I highly doubt individual sites will be classified as utilities. At the end of the day you don’t have a right to a social media account. No one does. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I’m told we are supposed to fuck those. lol

mdk thinks that analogies means things are the same in every way. Government schools, huh?

BTW, I already told you how they are the same. I did not say they are both utilities. How did I say they were the same? You don't know, do you? Be honest
 
This will likely get struck down by the courts. Also, it’s a violation of association rights, business rights, and property rights, but those don’t matter to those that only pay lip service to those principles anyway.
human rights come before those,,
You think you have a human right to a social media account? How hilariously entitled. :lol:

So just to be clear, if the electric company cuts your service for being a leftist, you don't have a problem with that.

Sure you don't, fascist. You're just for it because you're a Nazi and it's being used to silence your opposition.

Facebook, Google, et al can set up their own networks to provide their services. THEN they can deny service however they want. But they both decided to use taxpayer funded delivery systems, so they need to deliver their services to anyone who wants them
Stop kazzing. Twitter and Facebook aren't banning members for being rightists. They're banning them for violating their terms of service. Just like the electric company does.

Another lying fascist who wants to silence your opposition. You know perfectly well that only conservatives are being censored, Himmler
Why would I know something that is false?

 
Stupid remedy and waste of time. Republicans should have gotten rid of section 230 protection and let the market and litigation happy Americans take care of it.
 
Stunning support for censorship
Only weak knee, weak willed insecure people need differing views removed and people banished. It’s endorsing discrimination. Extreme libbie pretzel twisting to justify amounts to shrieking children.
 
Stunning support for censorship
Only weak knee, weak willed insecure people need differing views removed and people banished. It’s endorsing discrimination. Extreme libbie pretzel twisting to justify amounts to shrieking children.
LOL - keep chirping.

It's not support for censorship. It's a rejection of state regulated media. The government has no business dictating to social media companies. Private companies have no obligation to host your political propaganda.
 
Stunning support for censorship
Only weak knee, weak willed insecure people need differing views removed and people banished. It’s endorsing discrimination. Extreme libbie pretzel twisting to justify amounts to shrieking children.
LOL - keep chirping.

It's not support for censorship. It's a rejection of state regulated media. The government has no business dictating to social media companies. Private companies have no obligation to host your political propaganda.

A real libertarian would actually sit back and ponder why Internet social media companies are able to silence Trump and shut down their competitor Parlor. Obviously free markets are not working.

Here's the thing you don't understand about libertarians while you pretend to be one. We actually believe in actually free markets. Not just the theory of them. If it's not working, that's a problem. I mean for us, not you since you're a fake libertarian. This is working for you since you get to claim to be libertarian while actually helping the left who you don't grasp is completely not libertarian.

You may now have a fit as you always do. Ping Mac1958 while you're at it. The two of your cycles appear to by synched. Is he your man?
 
Stunning support for censorship
Only weak knee, weak willed insecure people need differing views removed and people banished. It’s endorsing discrimination. Extreme libbie pretzel twisting to justify amounts to shrieking children.
LOL - keep chirping.

It's not support for censorship. It's a rejection of state regulated media. The government has no business dictating to social media companies. Private companies have no obligation to host your political propaganda.

A real libertarian would actually sit back and ponder why Internet social media companies are able to silence Trump and shut down their competitor Parlor. Obviously free markets are not working.

Here's the thing you don't understand about libertarians while you pretend to be one. We actually believe in actually free markets. Not just the theory of them. If it's not working, that's a problem. I mean for us, not you since you're a fake libertarian. This is working for you since you get to claim to be libertarian while actually helping the left who you don't grasp is completely not libertarian.

Keep telling yourself that, as you follow your dear leader off a statist cliff.
 
And the stalwart defenders of liberty on the right should hate it. But here we are.

Like your defense of Section 230?

I haven't defended 230, nazy boy. I'm all for repealing. If for nothing else than removing at as an excuse for your statist ambitions.

Until PA laws are repealed - if ever - they must be applied to ALL. You demand they be applied only when it furthers the agenda of the Reich.

So until there is perfect liberty, you're shooting for full-on socialism. Got it. Comrade.

Equal justice under the law is " full-on socialism."

How very Nazi of you.
 
LOL - keep chirping.

It's not support for censorship. It's a rejection of state regulated media. The government has no business dictating to social media companies. Private companies have no obligation to host your political propaganda.

Yet you DO support censorship.

Hitler was a socialist. Yes, I know you fascists foam up and hiss when we normals point this out, but historical fact is that the state controlled the means of production and distribution. Yes, you fascists scream DEY WUZ CORPORATIONS, but I'd ask you to name the Nazi stock exchange and what BMW was trading at in 1942? Of course you can't, because they weren't corporations, they were trusts, state sponsored and controlled monopolies. Hitler's Reich used them to implement their economic policies; just as your Reich uses FascistTwatter to control social policy. The closer you inch toward absolute control and power, the more the line blurs between your Reich and the monopoly .
 
And the stalwart defenders of liberty on the right should hate it. But here we are.

Like your defense of Section 230?

I haven't defended 230, nazy boy. I'm all for repealing. If for nothing else than removing at as an excuse for your statist ambitions.

Until PA laws are repealed - if ever - they must be applied to ALL. You demand they be applied only when it furthers the agenda of the Reich.

So until there is perfect liberty, you're shooting for full-on socialism. Got it. Comrade.

Equal justice under the law is " full-on socialism."

How very Nazi of you.

What you're demanding isn't "equal justice under the law". Try again.
 
It directly states (6 times) that Citizens United is a PAC.
If the Citizen's United PAC were the issue, there'd be no case since the law didn't forbid PACs from electioneering, which was the whole point of the lawsuit.

Let's just get one fact straight, focus on this question. A 501(c)(4) organization is not a PAC. Agreed?

Your Cite states the fact that Citizens United is a PAC.

Moron
 
LOL - keep chirping.

It's not support for censorship. It's a rejection of state regulated media. The government has no business dictating to social media companies. Private companies have no obligation to host your political propaganda.

Yet you DO support censorship.
I sure do. You're just failing to understand the distinction between government and private companies. Or, conflating the two on purpose. Socialists do that a lot. They want to pretend that businesses are just the same as government (so that they can merge the two). Way to go!
 
Stupid remedy and waste of time. Republicans should have gotten rid of section 230 protection and let the market and litigation happy Americans take care of it.

Cool... Then the platforms can ban anyone they like...

230 protection allows them not to be sued if a user posts something on there platform unlike how we can sue a newspaper if an article appears on there platform.

Remove that protection and the Social Media platforms will drastically increase restriction of speech and will have an easy case in court, they would be liable for what users say...

Social Media platforms have been very loose in the past and have seen that lax policies been used to enable mass misinformation and radicalisation. They feel they have a corporate responsibility to not be enablers of this radicalisation.
 
But if they are going to use the platform funded by taxpayers, then they can't deny service any more than they can restrict access to roads.
Facebook built their own platform. Their servers and infrastructure is their own.
That's a lie.

Verizon and AT&T built most of the infrastructure of the Internet, with DARPA providing the research and development. Facebook has pulled not a single strand of fiber to another county or state. They are a website. Yes, they are critical to your Reich, but once again, you're making shit up.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
It directly states (6 times) that Citizens United is a PAC.
If the Citizen's United PAC were the issue, there'd be no case since the law didn't forbid PACs from electioneering, which was the whole point of the lawsuit.

Let's just get one fact straight, focus on this question. A 501(c)(4) organization is not a PAC. Agreed?

Your Cite states the fact that Citizens United is a PAC.

Moron
So you don’t think there was a 501(c)(4) organization called Citizen’s United in the lawsuit?

Because you already claimed there was.
 
But if they are going to use the platform funded by taxpayers, then they can't deny service any more than they can restrict access to roads.
Facebook built their own platform. Their servers and infrastructure is their own.
That's a lie.

Verizon and AT&T built most of the infrastructure of the Internet, with DARPA providing the research and development. Facebook has pulled not a single strand of fiber to another county or state. They are a website. Yes, they are critical to your Reich, but once again, you're making shit up.
And Facebook pays for access to that infrastructure. Facebook also paid to build their own servers and infrastructure to support their website.

The claim is that Facebook relies on the government and it doesn’t. They’re built themselves from the ground up.
 

Do you really not recognize yourself making all the same excuses that Democrats have shoveled for years?

The tech fascists are an agent of your party and agents of the state. Just like Hitler, you democrats use pseudo-private monopolies to implement your agenda.

You are a statist, FascistTwat is the tool of the state, hence you defend TwatBook with your life. Seig Heil mein democrat.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
But if they are going to use the platform funded by taxpayers, then they can't deny service any more than they can restrict access to roads.
Facebook built their own platform. Their servers and infrastructure is their own.
That's a lie.

Verizon and AT&T built most of the infrastructure of the Internet, with DARPA providing the research and development. Facebook has pulled not a single strand of fiber to another county or state. They are a website. Yes, they are critical to your Reich, but once again, you're making shit up.

Facebook are a website... They don't run a broadband business... The utilities offer broadband and charge for it...

DARPA was apart of the Internet journey but Xerox or CERN are there too..

So you are right when you are saying Facebook didn't build that...

You are really supporting Obama:
Obama stated, "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

With the internet it is also not even US exclusive but a global collaboration...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top