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

[kaz]

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.

LOL, a Democrat calling me a statist. That's classic

I call 'em as I see.

Like most Trumpsters, you're in denial. You've been sold a bill of goods and just can't bring yourself to admit it.

Yes, sadly that's true. You do call them as you see them and you are a fascist leftist in sheep's clothing

 

[dblack]

Facebook are a website... They don't run a broadband business...

Precisely. Good that you agree colfax_m is lying.

The utilities offer broadband and charge for it...

The Internet isn't classified as a utility in America.

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...

PARC (Xerox) was funded by DARPA. CERN had little to due with internet development and entered the picture much later with web development. Though Dan Bricklin, not Tim Berners Lee developed HTML. The Internet existed for decades before the web. (Not taking anything from TBL, without him there would be no web)

What is your point... Facebook is a web company...

They use the Internet like a haulier uses the roads...

I think you are trying to say that the Internet is a success for Big Government...

But Obama already explained this... Companies use the government all the time...

Amazon uses the postal service but the postal service actually make a profit on that particular business...

He just wants to use the government to punish all the tech companies who refused to kowtow to Trump. Because he's a libertarian.

And yet you claim to be a libertarian and you're supporting a market where leftist companies can actually for real shut down their competitors.

As you keep ignoring, libertarians support ACTUAL free markets, not the illusion of free markets. You are supporting a government enabled monopoly and crowing about it.

This is why every other libertarian on the board laughs at you. You fundamentally don't get it

OK.

 

[colfax_m]

False equivalency between the Internet and the roads.

That was proven wrong by Google who successfully shut down Parlor.

No baker could shut down another baker for making gay wedding cakes.

But Parlor said they would allow Trump to post and they were shut down by the social media cabal.

It's clearly not the same

Google didn't shut Parler down. Amazon stopped serving their website.

A baker could shut down another baker if that second baker was using the first baker's kitchen. Parler just needs to find a new host.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

You chose not to accept the fact that selective, targeted censorship is ugly and dangerous
The fact that your “bad guys” get put down shows just how very fragile you are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.

And I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.

It's the only legitimate option for a free society

It's the only legitimate option for a free society

Derp...
But then the society is only free to those who are accommodated.

That becomes problematic in a country where the founding principles are equality and freedom.

Freedom doesn't mean you will be accommodated. That's a false conception of freedom that undermines actual liberty.

Also, "equality" is not a founding premise. Maybe you're thinking of "equal rights under the law", an entirely different concern.

How free is someone if they cannot get a job, buy a home, educate themselves or their family, seek healthcare, buy supplies or groceries, travel freely, etc?

You're mixing up a lot of shit here. But mostly, you're conflating freedom and empowerment. They're not the same thing. The freedom to seek employment doesn't mean you'll find a job. The freedom to buy a home doesn't mean you'll be able to afford one. Just like freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone will listen to you, or post your shit on their website.

Without accommodation, a person can be completely disenfranchised from society. We’ve certainly seen this to be true.

I suppose so. If ALL of society refused to accommodate a person, that would be the case. But if that ever actually happened, what kind of person would we be talking about? How deplorable would someone have to be for ALL of society to refuse to associate with them? And why would you want to force people to accommodate such a person?

Equality is perhaps the foremost founding principle. Without it. No one is free if anyone can be disenfranchised.

You seem to have a radically different conception of freedom. Political freedom means you can't be arrested for doing something. It doesn't mean other people have to cater to your wishes.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Note that life, liberty and happiness come after equality.

Note also that it doesn't say all men are equal. Says they were created equal. It means they have equal rights, that they all have equal status under the law. Not that everyone must be equally empowered by society.

The crazy thing about the "equal empowerment" notion, is that it actually undermines equal rights under the law. In order for government to ensure that everyone is equally empowered it inevitably treats people differently.

I disagree completely. That libertarian line of thinking precludes the possibility of a functional, truly free society. There are limits placed on liberty. There has to be or there would be mayhem. Obviously we’ve seen what happens when society is free to decide the fate of a certain ethnicity or race. Equal status under the law today means public accommodation.

Correct.

And it’s naïve to believe that absent public accommodation measures private business owners would cease racist and discriminatory policies – where a business open to the general public that refuses to accommodate Americans of color would go out of business because of a lack of patronage, or compelled to serve Americans of color to stay in business.

Indeed, a restaurant or hotel that refused to accommodate black customers would likely flourish.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Google didn't shut Parler down. Amazon stopped serving their website.

As Amazon has every right to do as a private company in the context of private society.

By lawfully electing to no longer accommodate Parler, Amazon in no manner engaged in ‘censorship’ or ‘violated’ the right to free speech.

 

[colfax_m]

You chose not to accept the fact that selective, targeted censorship is ugly and dangerous

Sure, just turn every website into 4Chan. What could go wrong?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem arises when those terms are not applied and you engage in harassments of some while ignoring gross violations by others.

The ‘solution’ to that problem is not more government, bigger government violating the First Amendment rights of social media as conservatives seek to do.

If one believes that a given social media platform is being unfair or inconsistent with the application of the rules or how other participants are treated, the solution is to stop using that platform.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DeSantis literally ceased enforcing safety protocols to help prevent the spread of Coronavirus in the state of Florida when Florida leads the nation in the number of new cases and the number of new deaths.

DeSantis was going to deliver Florida to Trump no matter how many Florida residents he had to kill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The electric company is a natural monopoly and common carrier. This is in no way similar to how a social media platform is governed.

Exactly.

Unlike a utility, the internet is infinite with limitless opportunities for communication – all views can be expressed, all voices heard.

Indeed, there are tens of millions of individuals with neither a FB nor Twitter account who have no problem accessing the internet, no problem accessing news and information, and no problem accessing entertainment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

LOL, a Democrat calling me a statist. That's classic

You and others on the authoritarian right are a statist because you seek to use the power of government to violate citizens’ rights in violation of the Constitution:

The right to privacy

The right to vote

The right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law.

The right of immigrants to due process of the law

And the right of social media to freedom of the press and freedom of association

Laws and measures Democrats support are consistent with the Constitution and violate no rights – such as public accommodations laws the Supreme Court has held to be lawful and in no manner violate the right to freedom of association.

More government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – it’s the conservative way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You really have a weird fixation with Nazis.

You are a serious threat to liberty.

You are poised to snuff out the light of individual freedom for a thousand years. We stop you now or a dark age envelopes mankind for a hundred generations.

You are the darkness of the void come to end life as we know it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More Nazi stuff. Do you think about anything else?

You are the threat to this world. Hitler was chump change to what you bring.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Facebook are a website... They don't run a broadband business...

Precisely. Good that you agree colfax_m is lying.

The utilities offer broadband and charge for it...

The Internet isn't classified as a utility in America.

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...

PARC (Xerox) was funded by DARPA. CERN had little to due with internet development and entered the picture much later with web development. Though Dan Bricklin, not Tim Berners Lee developed HTML. The Internet existed for decades before the web. (Not taking anything from TBL, without him there would be no web)

What is your point... Facebook is a web company...

They use the Internet like a haulier uses the roads...

I think you are trying to say that the Internet is a success for Big Government...

But Obama already explained this... Companies use the government all the time...

Amazon uses the postal service but the postal service actually make a profit on that particular business...

The postal service loses millions from Amazon, as Trump demonstrated, The monopoly exists on public funding.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I call 'em as I see.

Like most Trumpsters, you're in denial. You've been sold a bill of goods and just can't bring yourself to admit it.

You "call em" as serves your Reich.

You are a statist seeking absolute control by your party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

dblack doesn't grasp a real libertarian would realize that when there is no free market that it's not libertarian. Leftists actually silenced Trump for real and shut down Parlor for even saying they would allow him to post. At that point, you have to figure out what's wrong, why there is no free market. Being a fake libertarian and a real leftist, dblack likes it and has no interest in finding out why the market is clearly not in any way free

He grasps it, he just isn't what he portrays himself to be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

False equivalency between the Internet and the roads.

That was proven wrong by Google who successfully shut down Parlor.

No baker could shut down another baker for making gay wedding cakes.

But Parlor said they would allow Trump to post and they were shut down by the social media cabal.

It's clearly not the same

Google didn't shut Parler down. Amazon stopped serving their website.

A baker could shut down another baker if that second baker was using the first baker's kitchen. Parler just needs to find a new host.

Fucking liar

 

[Uncensored2008]

The problem arises when those terms are not applied and you engage in harassments of some while ignoring gross violations by others.

The ‘solution’ to that problem is not more government, bigger government violating the First Amendment rights of social media as conservatives seek to do.

If one believes that a given social media platform is being unfair or inconsistent with the application of the rules or how other participants are treated, the solution is to stop using that platform.

There is now "first amendment right" to silence the speech of others, Saul?

The reality is that the monopoly rides on a public financed infrastructure and operates under protection of the government.

My preference is to remove ALL - and I mean fucking ALL funding for the internet and to end all special protection for the monopoly,

But short of that, the EQUAL application of TOS is a bare minimum.

 

[colfax_m]

Fucking liar

100% true.

 

[schmidlap]

Authoritarians try to crush free market capitalism, and insist the State should be empowered to dictate to private enterprise

If the Loser insisted on taking a crap in Krispy Kreme franchises, should the State enforce his right to free expression?

If he were to comport himself with the proper etiquette that all their other customers observe, he should then be equally respected as a patron.