Florida passes a bill that fines Big Tech for banning candidates...DeSantis strikes again

[BasicHumanUnit]

As everyone knows...without members, they wouldn't even be a social media in the first place. So, if everyone actually took a strong stand, and disconnect from them, maybe they will get the picture once they find out their revenues from ads start to slip dramatically. Because, since no one is using these platforms, there is no one that are clicking on the ads. So, therefore the ads are just clogging up the platforms as bots.

Yeah, I know it would never happen. We have been so adapted to these social media platforms, there will always be new members that are so clueless to what they are getting themselves into.

People are weak, lazy, selfish and couldn't care less about freedom or you...as long as they get their personal fill of entertainment and fun.

And this is why it is being taken away systematically.

 

[dblack]

A more accurate name for the bill would be the. " I'm pouting because they won't let trump tweet, so I'm gonna pass a stupid bill."

What bothers me most about this crap is the orwellian way they pretend they're concerned about free speech, as they propose The Ministry Of Truth.

It isn't about free speech. It is about how elections are conducted in the state of Florida.

It's a power grab. The state has seen the impact of social media and they, both sides, want to control it.

Wrong.

Pompouse bloviation dismissed.

 

[Faun]

Ronny D swinging his big bat around. This bill has some nice teeth.


POST THE STANDARDS AND THEN APPLY THEM CONSISTENTLY? What a concept!

Social media crackdown clears Florida Senate, giving Gov. Ron DeSantis one of his top priorities

In one of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ top priorities of the legislative session, the Florida Senate on Monday passed a measure to crack down on social-media companies that remove users from their plat…

www.sun-sentinel.com

Not a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the supreme court.

On what grounds? States fine companies all the time.

Sure, but they generally have to break a law before they are fined. This is about trump being able to tweet. Don't try to pretend it is anything else.

I don't like Trump, but it is totally and completely illegal to prevent him from Tweeting.
Trump Tweeting is political speech, which is obviously protected against discrimination like Twitter did.
On top of that, arbitrary denial of service violated the FCC regulations Twitter agreed to when allowed to conduct business on the internet.
Twitter is totally in violation.

Do you think it's illegal to ban you from this site if you violate the forum rules?

 

[Nostra]

Ronny D swinging his big bat around. This bill has some nice teeth.


POST THE STANDARDS AND THEN APPLY THEM CONSISTENTLY? What a concept!

Social media crackdown clears Florida Senate, giving Gov. Ron DeSantis one of his top priorities

In one of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ top priorities of the legislative session, the Florida Senate on Monday passed a measure to crack down on social-media companies that remove users from their plat…

www.sun-sentinel.com

Not a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the supreme court.

On what grounds? States fine companies all the time.

Sure, but they generally have to break a law before they are fined. This is about trump being able to tweet. Don't try to pretend it is anything else.

Hence, the law.

Now they can be fined for doing the dirty work of the DNC.

 

[Dekster]

A more accurate name for the bill would be the. " I'm pouting because they won't let trump tweet, so I'm gonna pass a stupid bill."

What bothers me most about this crap is the orwellian way they pretend they're concerned about free speech, as they propose The Ministry Of Truth.

It isn't about free speech. It is about how elections are conducted in the state of Florida.

It's a power grab. The state has seen the impact of social media and they, both sides, want to control it.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The authoritarian effort to use the power of government to enact punitive measures against private social media is the sole purview of the right.

No it is an effort to provide equal access to a means of distribution of campaign messaging. It is absolutely no different than telling companies that if you sell ads to one campaign you have to sell them to all campaigns at the same price point. And again the "power" of government is no more at play in Florida than it is California ergo it is not a "false comparison". It is an apples to apples comparison. If California has the power to regulate big tech in its state, then so does Florida.

 

[danielpalos]

Ronny D swinging his big bat around. This bill has some nice teeth.


POST THE STANDARDS AND THEN APPLY THEM CONSISTENTLY? What a concept!

Social media crackdown clears Florida Senate, giving Gov. Ron DeSantis one of his top priorities

In one of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ top priorities of the legislative session, the Florida Senate on Monday passed a measure to crack down on social-media companies that remove users from their plat…

www.sun-sentinel.com

Not a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the supreme court.

On what grounds? States fine companies all the time.

Sure, but they generally have to break a law before they are fined. This is about trump being able to tweet. Don't try to pretend it is anything else.

I don't like Trump, but it is totally and completely illegal to prevent him from Tweeting.
Trump Tweeting is political speech, which is obviously protected against discrimination like Twitter did.
On top of that, arbitrary denial of service violated the FCC regulations Twitter agreed to when allowed to conduct business on the internet.
Twitter is totally in violation.

Do you think it's illegal to ban you from this site if you violate the forum rules?

False witness bearing, anti-free speech, right wing hypocrites ban me from threads all the time.

 

[dblack]

It's a power grab. The state has seen the impact of social media and they, both sides, want to control it.

No it is an effort to provide equal access to a means of distribution of campaign messaging.

Another way of saying the same thing I suppose.

It is absolutely no different than telling companies that if you sell ads to one campaign you have to sell them to all campaigns at the same price point.

You're right. That's wrong as well.

The bottom line here is that the very reason the First Amendment exists is to prevent government from dictating to the media. No one, no website, no company, should be forced to accommodate state propaganda. That's what you're after here - you want to force them to host Trump's "tweets", and that's dead wrong.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

DeSantis clearly is filling the void left by Trump and becomes the republican front runner by default.
The left thought they could kill Trump. They've only empowered Trump 2.0.

 

[Dekster]

It's a power grab. The state has seen the impact of social media and they, both sides, want to control it.

No it is an effort to provide equal access to a means of distribution of campaign messaging.

Another way of saying the same thing I suppose.

It is absolutely no different than telling companies that if you sell ads to one campaign you have to sell them to all campaigns at the same price point.

You're right. That's wrong as well.

The bottom line here is that the very reason the First Amendment exists is to prevent government from dictating to the media. No one, no website, no company, should be forced to accommodate state propaganda. That's what you're after here - you want to force them to host Trump's "tweets", and that's dead wrong.

Trump isn't a candidate for anything in Florida or elsewhere so they would not be required to give him access to their platform.

"The bill, in part, would bar social-media companies from removing political candidates from the companies’ platforms. Companies that violate the prohibition could face fines of $100,000 a day for statewide candidates and $10,000 a day for other candidates.

The proposal also would require social-media companies to publish standards about issues such as blocking users and apply the standards consistently."

 

[dblack]

That's what you're after here - you want to force them to host Trump's "tweets", and that's dead wrong.

Trump isn't a candidate for anything in Florida or elsewhere so they would not be required to give him access to their platform.

I meant that figuratively - as a general principle.

"The bill, in part, would bar social-media companies from removing political candidates from the companies’ platforms. Companies that violate the prohibition could face fines of $100,000 a day for statewide candidates and $10,000 a day for other candidates.

The proposal also would require social-media companies to publish standards about issues such as blocking users and apply the standards consistently."

Right. It's government bullying media. EXACTLY what the First Amendment is there to prevent.

 

[dblack]

DeSantis clearly is filling the void left by Trump and becomes the republican front runner by default.
The left thought they could kill Trump. They've only empowered Trump 2.0.

It was never really about Trump. He was just a reflection. That's what I keep trying to get across to the Democrats. The real problem is the populist, nationalist, know-nothing-ism that Trump tapped into. It's still there, and the dummies still love it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Right. It's government bullying media. EXACTLY what the First Amendment is there to prevent.

Let the Social Media tycoons relinquish their government hand outs their promises got them and
then they can honestly ban whoever they wish. They cannot honestly be publishers and censors both
however.

If government truly "bullied" media and held them accountable to their promises you would whine and yelp about that. There is no pleasing spoiled children.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It was never really about Trump. He was just a reflection. That's what I keep trying to get across to the Democrats. The real problem is the populist, nationalist, know-nothing-ism that Trump tapped into. It's still there, and the dummies still love it.

If it pleases you to think so why stop yourself?

 

[dblack]

Right. It's government bullying media. EXACTLY what the First Amendment is there to prevent.

Let the Social Media tycoons relinquish their government hand outs their promises got them and
then they can honestly ban whoever they wish. They cannot honestly be publishers and censors both
however.

If government truly "bullied" media and held them accountable to their promises you would whine and yelp about that. There is no pleasing spoiled children.

If you see government as the "parent", and the rest of us as its children - I think that's a deeper problem.

 

[colfax_m]

The tech companies are not private businesses because they actually are just subdividing the public internet.
It is not like they are running their own network or anything remotely owned by them.

The internet is basically limitless. Subdividing isn't really a good encapsulation of how a website exists. The mere presence of one company on the internet does not limit any other company.

 

[ColonelAngus]

How can anyone argue with the terms of service being posted specifically and then adhered to?

Doesnt that only seem reasonable?

Big Tech has made themselves publishers. They are not platforms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The tech companies are not private businesses because they actually are just subdividing the public internet.
It is not like they are running their own network or anything remotely owned by them.

The internet is basically limitless. Subdividing isn't really a good encapsulation of how a website exists. The mere presence of one company on the internet does not limit any other company.

Exactly.

There's ample opportunity for conservatives to spread their misinformation, fake news, and lies online.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If you see government as the "parent", and the rest of us as its children - I think that's a deeper problem.

I think the "deeper problem" is you pretending the protected robber baron class in social media
has no duty to live up their part of the bargain they agreed to.

If they wish to keep and protect all their little hiding places and special privileges let Facebook Boy and
Dorsey live up to their part of the agreement.

Are they publishers or platforms? Which is it?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Exactly.

There's ample opportunity for conservatives to spread their misinformation, fake news, and lies online.

Just as the left does. But the left is also sheltered and protected by Social Media as part or their pact with the
giants which only those on the right are forced to obey.

Don't tell me you are so stupid you can't see the massive double standard?

It must be that you love a fight where you are the only one who can throw punches.
It is a comfort knowing mommy won't let anyone hurt you, I imagine.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you see government as the "parent", and the rest of us as its children - I think that's a deeper problem.

I think the "deeper problem" is you pretending the protected robber baron class in social media
has no duty to live up their part of the bargain they agreed to.

If they wish to keep and protect all their little hiding places and special privileges let Facebook Boy and
Dorsey live up to their part of the agreement.

Are they publishers or platforms? Which is it?

Those 'protections' are badly misunderstood. They do not really have any special protections. The only thing 230 does is recognize that platforms like FB or Twitter should clearly not be liable for things other people say on the medium. It would be asinine to say twitter is responsible for what I choose to tweet.

It really is no different than the carve outs for gun manufacturers. We already know that the gun manufactures are not responsible for the misuse of their products but because people will sue anyway laws were enacted to make that clear. Because people will go after the media companies for silly shit people say on them, the law makes it clear they are also not liable.