New Florida Law Could Punish Social Media Companies for 'Deplatforming' Politicians (nbcnews.com) 336
Florida is on track to be the first state in America to punish social media companies that ban politicians, reports NBC News, "under a bill approved Thursday by the state's Republican-led Legislature."
Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and close Trump ally who called for the bill's passage, is expected to sign the legislation into law, but the proposal appears destined to be challenged in court after a tech industry trade group called it a violation of the First Amendment speech rights of corporations...
Suspensions of up to 14 days would still be allowed, and a service could remove individual posts that violate its terms of service. The state's elections commission would be empowered to fine a social media company $250,000 a day for statewide candidates and $25,000 a day for other candidates if a company's actions are found to violate the law, which also requires the companies to provide information about takedowns and apply rules consistently...
Florida Republican lawmakers have cited tech companies' wide influence over speech as a reason for the increased regulation. "What this bill is about is sending a loud message to Silicon Valley that they are not the absolute arbiters of truth," state Rep. John Snyder, a Republican from the Port St. Lucie area, said Wednesday... The Florida bill may offer Republicans in other states a road map for introducing laws that could eventually force social media companies and U.S. courts to confront questions about free speech on social media, including the questions raised by Thomas.
State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, an Orlando area Democrat, said if Republicans want to stay on private services, they should follow the rules. "There's already a solution to deplatforming candidates on social media: Stop trafficking in conspiracy theories...."
NetChoice, a trade group for internet companies, argued the bill punishes platforms for removing harmful content, and that it would make it harder to block spam. But they also argued that the freedom of speech clause in the U.S. Constitution "makes clear that government may not regulate the speech of private individuals or businesses.
"This includes government action that compels speech by forcing a private social media platform to carry content that is against its policies or preferences."
Slashdot reader zantafio points out the bill specifies just five major tech companies — Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon.
And that the bill was also amended to specifically exempt Disney, Universal and any theme park owner that operates a search engine or information service.
Suspensions of up to 14 days would still be allowed, and a service could remove individual posts that violate its terms of service. The state's elections commission would be empowered to fine a social media company $250,000 a day for statewide candidates and $25,000 a day for other candidates if a company's actions are found to violate the law, which also requires the companies to provide information about takedowns and apply rules consistently...
Florida Republican lawmakers have cited tech companies' wide influence over speech as a reason for the increased regulation. "What this bill is about is sending a loud message to Silicon Valley that they are not the absolute arbiters of truth," state Rep. John Snyder, a Republican from the Port St. Lucie area, said Wednesday... The Florida bill may offer Republicans in other states a road map for introducing laws that could eventually force social media companies and U.S. courts to confront questions about free speech on social media, including the questions raised by Thomas.
State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, an Orlando area Democrat, said if Republicans want to stay on private services, they should follow the rules. "There's already a solution to deplatforming candidates on social media: Stop trafficking in conspiracy theories...."
NetChoice, a trade group for internet companies, argued the bill punishes platforms for removing harmful content, and that it would make it harder to block spam. But they also argued that the freedom of speech clause in the U.S. Constitution "makes clear that government may not regulate the speech of private individuals or businesses.
"This includes government action that compels speech by forcing a private social media platform to carry content that is against its policies or preferences."
Slashdot reader zantafio points out the bill specifies just five major tech companies — Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon.
And that the bill was also amended to specifically exempt Disney, Universal and any theme park owner that operates a search engine or information service.
Well, some people are more free than others (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus the politicians vote in special rights for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, right out of Animal Farm, at the 1:25:48 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, some people are more free than others (Score:5, Insightful)
The political party pushing this law complains that there is too much regulation. Yet here that party is regulating companies. No contradiction here at all, is there?
And it's not like those companies are deplatforming all the members of that party. Those members being deplatformed are spreading baseless claims or sharing messages that promote violence or both. At least as far as promoting violence, nearly any company associated with public media has rules against posts that promote violence. So those members promoting violence aren't being deplatformed for being members of a certain party, it's for that person's choice to post things that go against terms of service. Those politicians love it when companies protect themselves with a bunch legal fine print, but they don't like it when the fine print is actually used against them.
And somewhat related. This legislation is being pushed by a party that doesn't want to be held accountable and is thus pushing other legislation at the same time that they hope will disenfranchise thousands of voters, so that the party can't be voted out as easily. There is almost nothing democratic, small d as in the principles, not capital D, as in the party, about the republican party. They are only out to serve the interests of a slowly shrinking certain group of people who don't like the fact they aren't being allowed to run everything like they have been for the last 200+ years.
Re:Voters to get here the elected (Score:5, Informative)
They CAN hear him. On any website of his that they want.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, they're privately owned websites. They shouldn't be forced to carry the messages of particular politicians any more than you should be forced to use a loudspeaker to proclaim AOC's latest thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes, robocalls should be universally banned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The moment you put a political statement up *anywhere* on your property, including your front lawn, is the moment you should be required to allow anyone else to also out up a political statement on your property.
Dont like it? Hands off of private social media.
Re:Voters to get here the elected (Score:4, Insightful)
social media companies need to be reclassified as privately run public services, and have to abide by all the laws for public services and restrictions that governmental agencies do.
Otherwise we have situations like that which occurred on Facebook, where the 'editorial staff' pedaled fake news sites as 'trending articles' (but they weren't) that were pure disinformation that attacked Trump during the Hillary/Donald election.
So just where do you draw the line? What determines how "big" a social media platform needs to be in order to qualify for regulation?
What if a popular gaming site has a forum with an offtopic section, and a political debate starts there, and the moderators take down some content for violating their terms of service? What if they banned someone who happened to hold some political office? Do we start regulating them, too?
I don't want the government to be in the business of regulating free speech online PERIOD. I don't care if the intent is to level the playing field. As soon as the government has control over it, they can abuse it.
Re: Voters to get here the elected (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is one of those subjects where people choose what is convenient to them and make a hard 180 when the tables turn.
So please do consider this: what when (not if, I promise) some Trump supporters take control of Facebook, Twitter and Google.
I bet you will suddenly realize that protecting businesses from government is silly when it is those same businesses effectively electing said government.
Re: Voters to get here the elected (Score:5, Insightful)
A better option is not allowing politicians on social media platforms in their political personas. So if they have a private account they can still talk to friends and family or if they have something like a steam account they can keep playing games but can't use it for spreading politics.If they are found to violate that rule the account is suspended until they are no longer a politician.
That works no matter what the political party is.
Re: (Score:2)
And furthermore, the government should not be in the business of regulating free markets (via monopoly busting, etc.) because as soon as the government has control over it, they can abuse it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a weak excuse, it's citing exactly how the courts have repeatedly ruled that the first amendment works.
Of course if you want a big government solution you're welcome to give it a go, just ignore the belly laughs coming from your left in regards to your hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is a true statement. None of those services are a monopoly and they have few if any of the specific characteristics of a Utility.
.
The main point is there is not one social media company, there are many.
If Facebook rejects you, use twitter.
If Twitter rejects you use parlour.
If Parlour rejects use Instagram.
If Instagram rejects you use Reddit.
If Reddit rejects you use Youtube.
If Youtube rejects you Tumblr
If all SEVEN of those separate comp[anies reject you, then you have a choice:
1. Realize you are t
Re:Voters to get here the elected (Score:5, Insightful)
That's becoming too close to a monopoly for my liking.
And when your answer to the public turning against your policies is to use the government to compel them, that makes you a little too close to a fucking fascist for my liking.
Re:Voters to get here the elected (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. That is not an alternative. If all the companies are on one side of the political spectrum, that means the other side is a "biggest lying piece of crap around and should shut up."
Capitalism does not favor one side or the other of the political spectrum. These guys want to make money and care more about that than politics. That is how they got big. As proof, there are a ton of conservative web sites, including Parlour, which I mentioned.
The problem is that the Conservative web sites can not grow big because the Conservatives have embraced lies. This is new. The GOP used to be about ethical behavior. They pushed a lying, corrupt President Nixon out of office.
Not anymore. Now when their fringe members make ridiculous claims about literal Satan worshiping, cannibalistic pedophiles, they keep their mouths shut. Now there are Democrats with stupid fringe ideas too (Repartitions for slavery is never going to happen - the slaves all died long ago and no amount of money will make it right). But the Democrats admonish those with fringe beliefs rather than let them take center stage.
When someone claims an election which they clearly lost the popular vote by 7 million votes (mostly in clearly democratic states), that somehow the Democrats must have 'cheated' when they squeaked out a victory in the electoral vote, you got a problem. They falsely accuse voting companies without any evidence, then get all apologetic when they get sued for it because they KNOW they lied.
The "mass media" is honest, far more than the generally smaller right aspected media. Facebook and Twitter did not outlaw Trump until AFTER the election. That alone is proof they bent over backwards to be fair, despite his side descending into a gigantic cesspool of lies.
I understand your reluctance to admit the flaws in your own side. I hate talking about how the Democrats never stand together. That is a side effect of having an actual 'big tent' party, rather than the 'only REAL Republicans, no RINOS' that you have.
But we are not cheating you. You are cheating America. Mainly by trying win the majority of the majority. rather than the majority of the country.
If you can't get more than 25% of the black vote, you got a problem. Trump got 8%, up from 6% in 2016. You have a problem you do not want to admit. It is not our fault, but yours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GOP used to be about ethical behavior.
Yes, there were, I suppose, brief periods around the Civil War and the Teddy Roosevelt administration where that was true. Maybe during the Eisenhower administration (though I think the Second Red Scare suggests otherwise). But let's not go thinking that it's ever been a core value of theirs or anything.
Re: (Score:3)
If they want the editorial control that comes with being a publisher then I fully support granting them that status.
Oh good grief not this bullshit again.
Without "editorial control" everything will become a crapflood of spam.
Is that really the world you want? Websites as locked down as cable TV or unrelenting spam. Because that is what your idea will lead to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Voters to get here the elected (Score:4, Insightful)
Marsh v. Alabama hinged upon the fact that the Company Town was, in all respects other than it being private property, a town.
As we have heretofore stated, the town of Chickasaw does not function differently from any other town. The 'business block' serves as the community shopping center and is freely accessible and open to the people in the area and those passing through. The managers appointed by the corporation cannot curtail the liberty of press and religion of these people consistently with the purposes of the Constitutional guarantees, and a state statute, as the one here involved, which enforces such action by criminally punishing those who attempt to distribute religious literature clearly violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
and
In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of liberty, here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute.
This will not translate in an obvious way to an online service.
i.e., you are attempting to improperly expand a rather narrow ruling.
Re:Voters to get here the elected (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong, dipshit.
The Supreme Court found that towns cannot prohibit people from distributing religious literature, and it simply didn't matter whether the town was publicly-owned or privately-owned.
But more importantly, the case has almost never been followed or extended.
In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) the Supreme Court said that shopping malls were not subject to the First Amendment, and could kick people out for passing out leaflets.
And in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck in 2019, the Court completely destroyed your stupid, stupid argument by holding that the First Amendment does not prohibit the private abridgement of speech and that no one who privately provides a forum for speech is subject to being restricted by the First Amendment in the way the government is, merely because they provide it:
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. ... As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be "to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country." 424 U. S., at 517 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
Also, you clearly never read Marsh, or you'd know that the person distributing literature was a woman.
Fuck off until you get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that's a pretty flawed argument. There is a huge overhead and expense of running telephone service to a customer (especially a customer not in a densely populated area) so we made phone service a utility. We somehow haven't even managed to do the same yet with broadband, so I don't see how we can skip a step and start regulating the stuff on the internet as a public utility.
But lets forget that part. Lets assume we get to the point where internet is a utility. So the next step is you want to regu
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that's a pretty flawed argument. There is a huge overhead and expense of running telephone service to a customer (especially a customer not in a densely populated area) so we made phone service a utility. We somehow haven't even managed to do the same yet with broadband, so I don't see how we can skip a step and start regulating the stuff on the internet as a public utility.
The answer lies within your post. Physical infrastructure is not needed. And my point is more about similar arguments, not similar ease of implementation.
But lets forget that part. Lets assume we get to the point where internet is a utility. So the next step is you want to regulate the websites on it as a utility too.
We are getting into straw man territory. Social media platforms are unique because they are increasingly being chosen as a source of news and information. Again, regulation does not apply until a service becomes ubiquitous and necessary. Nearly all web services will fail such criteria.
Unlike the expense of running a phone or broadband line to a property, there is zero expense to choosing which website you broadcast your message on ...
You ignore the network effect which is a large factor in ubiquitous and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so are you suggesting that the broadband companies should classified as utilities? Rather a different stance than normal for conservatives.
Good thing I am an independent that is free to lean one way or the other as logic indicates.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If a politician's website gets DDOS'd, DMCA'd, and cancelled out of existence via pressure then maybe they'll start supporting laws that protect people wanting to be heard online without unwarranted harassment.
Re:Voters to get here the elected (Score:5, Informative)
Elected officials have numerous ways of communicating with people. DeSantis could call a press conference and vans full of people with broadcast gear will be there in no time. He could use the official government website to speak from. This is no different than the no shirt no shoes no service sign. Private companies and businesses are under no obligation to serve anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
The comparison between public utilities and a internet service platform is disingenuous for the simple reason that anyone can set up an internet service to serve any customer for a very small cost whereas public utilities needs investment into a physical infrastructure which usually means you have a captive market.
A public utility is the result of the impracticality of having several physical infrastructures of the same type which leads to a natural monopoly and captive market. And this is why public utilit
Re: (Score:2)
They were often nationalized, perhaps your government should simply nationalize all these services. After nationalization, they can sell it back to private interests with strings attached like what happened to the phone company.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but were he to be blocked on Twitter he'd lose the ability to alert people via social media to his posts on gov't websites. It effectively removes his ability to advertise his actions.
He doesn’t have a right to alert people via social media in the first place, nor does it remove his ability to advertise his actions (which also isn’t his right, just to be clear). If he wants to get the word out, he can send email newsletters, publish an RSS feed, call a press conference, serve a federated microblog, take out a newspaper or magazine ad, send snail mail, submit an op-ed, call supporters by telephone, host rallies, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on. Your UID is low
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Voters to get here the elected (Score:3)
Whatever did they do? They recognized where the public discourse primarily happened and passed the equal time rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org] so that private companies who controlled that medium could not deny access to some politicians while providing it to others.
Now that public discourse happens primarily on tv and social media, social media companies should not have the power to deny access anymore than tv.
Typical Republican Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes...let's mount a campaign against net neutrality and call it first amendment. Let's stand up there and tell the country "we're not going to make sure your ISP has to provide you fair service because that would be a violation of their rights."
But now...they want to backtrack.
I'm sorry...but if they're such believers in "Free market" and "corporate rights"....then they have no business restricting them. They made their bed; now they need to get kicked out of it.
Re:Typical Republican Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess their free market isn't working out like they thought.
Re:Typical Republican Hypocrisy (Score:5, Funny)
It's only fun when the invisible hand is punching someone else in the nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Subsets want this and other subsets want that. The only thing that keeps them from splitting into more nuanced interests groups that are prone to in-fighting is having a common enemy.
And that's nothing really special in politics. That's also how things go down in Europe, where most countries have a handful or more political parties that can get seats in the parliament.
Re: Typical Republican Hypocrisy (Score:2)
It only doesn't make sense to you because you're too dense to understand why Net Neutrality has nothing to do with social media. Net Neutrality says that ISPs must treat all traffic equally. Remember that this traffic is stuff that you requested from websites you want to see, and you're paying to have that traffic delivered to you. Net Neutrality requires that ISPs deliver the service you paid for, without requiring other people to also pay up for something you already bought and paid for. That has nothing
Re:Typical Republican Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everything I don't agree with is socialism"
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"How do I let everyone know I don't know what words mean?"
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do all the eugenists, racists, white-supremacists and neo-nazis in the U.S. vote republican ? Republicans are socialists now ?
Indeed you have simply decided in your simple mind to label all that you hate as "socialist", completely bypassing the real definitions of things and, for that matter, all common sense and logic.
In other words: You're a fucking moron. I bet you voted for Trump, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Case in point Democrats have Committed the Genocide of over 40 million black Americans since the 1960's.
And white people... Asians... Native Americans... Fuck, probably everyone.
It's like they're trying to make abortion universally available.
Wait no, that can't be it. They're trying to eradicate the black race.
You are a truly fucking stupid individual.
Re: (Score:3)
For fuck's sake I thought I'd heard everything. "Corporate Socialist"... Seriously...
Corporations are anti-socialism by their very nature !. They are anti-taxes, anti-regulations, anti-worker-benefits, anti-unions, etc. i.e. they oppose everything that would limit their ability to maximize profits in any way, shape or form. They are fascist, by definition. And fascism is NOT socialism, it is the direct opposite ! Do you think the Nazis were socialists simply because they called themselves that ? Look at the
Re: (Score:2)
"Everything I don't like about capitalism is socialism"
Re: (Score:3)
It's not socialism because it's not for everyone.
It's just capitalism, or corporatism if you like. Which I do:
The wealthy band together to buy laws to protect their money and to help them make more money. They do it through corporate structures. Therefore, corporatism.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahaha, "corporate socialists"!? I don't think you know how dumb you sound here. What's next out of you, "violent pacifism"?
Re:Nope, just pushing back on imagined "right" (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about rights. It's creating a *duty* on private corporations to carry the speech of third parties even if the corporations believe that speech is directly harmful to their business interests. It's risible.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about rights. It's creating a *duty* on private corporations to carry the speech of third parties even if the corporations believe that speech is directly harmful to their business interests. It's risible.
Please point to the clause of the Constitution that says this is so. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
The only "duty" a private corporation has is to its shareholders. If people don't like what the a particular media platform is hosting, they're free to go somewhere else. Even if the answer is "there is no somewhere else", I would resist regulation anyway because it's like punishing someone for getting there first and being successful at it.
And before anyone accuses me of being a corporate shill, I actua
Re: (Score:2)
Social media companies don't do the same thing phone companies do. Not on a technical level, nor on a business level. The infrastructure/utility in question is the ISP. (Who are - not coincidentally - also the phone provider.) TCP/IP was designed, and mostly still is, a content-agnostic way of moving data around. It's not cost-prohibitive to use it to communicate with people, large amounts of people, and nobody has to use Twitbook to do it (I sure don't.)
I find it hard to go into "There should be a law...!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
None of that applies to social media. The barrier to entry is very low.
Absolutely wrong, network effect establishes high switching costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because elected officials have always had many ways to communicate with their voters.
Methods chosen by the voters, not by the elected officials. And voters are demonstrating a shift from traditional (outdated and disrupted means) to social media.
All they have done is exercised their "right to refuse service to anyone", just like any business.
Until they become a ubiquitous and necessary service, and especially so when protected by a network effect, then they become regulated. As the telephone company was. As people in favor of universal broadband access argue with respect to cable and dsl providers.
Democracy burns. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is sorrowful to watch the United States fall so far due to the basic tenants of democracy. All of the nonsense you watch as states try to come up with the next piece of stupid they pass as legislation.
And all of this is in support of a grifter whos only real goal is to make money for nothing. It is truly sad for the rest of in the world to watch you democracy burn.
Re:Democracy burns. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said.
In short, they're using the democratic process to eliminate democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, our elections are, overall, pre
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with much of what you said, but a point to highlight is this:
"That being said, our elections are, overall, pretty darn free and clear. "
Yes and no. For the most part I concur, but things like gerrymandering and voter suppression (as is happening in Georgia legislatively) tend to make them not so fair and not so free.
So overall, yes, but little by little they're using our own democratic process to attack voting- the very foundation of democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Fucking hell will you cunts just quit with this utter bullshit about voter suppression.
Fucking hell will you cunts just quit with your gaslighting that there's no voter suppression.
Re:Democracy burns. (Score:4, Interesting)
The correct comparison with Venezuela would be to say Republicans haven't "voted democracy out of existence yet". They're doing all they can to turn the US into a one party state and there is no guarantee they won't succeed. McConnell/Trump stuffing the Supreme Court with incompetent far right judges gives them a real shot at achieving their goal. Democracy is very much in peril, and the struggle is ongoing.
Nice Ignorance (Score:2)
Nice ignorance.
For starters the US is doing much better in the context of "the basic tenants of democracy" then it ever has before. It's not that long ago that black folks were almost completely marginalized from main stream society in some states. Don't get me wrong, pre 1970's US is a low hurdle to jump over when viewed in a modern context and we can still do much better but this nonsense about the US "falling so far" in this context is ridiculous if you even have a passing knowledge of the US.
After that
Re: Democracy burns. (Score:2)
First of all... Rebeka Jones is not in jail,
She bailed out on 2500 bond
Secondly nothing you say is true, you are a lying shill
This is why I don't vote Republican anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are a few decent one left... Kasich, Romney, McCain...
John McCain? He died in 2018. Trump kept badmouthing McCain for years as if he was still alive and still causing problems for Trump, but he’s been dead for nearly three years now, since August 2018.
My Hypocrisy meter (Score:2)
The needle on my Hypocrisy meter just blew through the side of the case, went straight up and is now passing through the rings of Saturn.
Re: (Score:3)
My favorite part about this stupid law... (Score:5, Interesting)
"And that the bill was also amended to specifically exempt Disney, Universal and any theme park owner that operates a search engine or information service."
My favorite part about this stupid and blatantly unconstitutional law is that with this theme park exemption all Google would have to do to avoid the law is build a shitty theme park in Florida.
Maybe they could make it tiger themed...
Re: (Score:2)
The Mouse's lawyers must have pointed out that not everything on the Internet of Disney Approved.
Re: (Score:3)
So Facebook can buy Disney and Twitter can by Universal and then everything is back to status quo?
Why are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social Media was created to be a public platform, that is how they sold themselves to the Government and the people to get Section 230 protections.
Now they want to act as publishers, while keeping those protections.
Pick one, Publisher or Platform, I don't care which. Let everyone know, and deal with the fallout of the choice.
HINT: If you don't want your political/religious opposition to have a voice, your a publisher, and No Section 230 for you.
Not just free speech (Score:3)
But also freedom of association, a politician should have LESS rights than the common man and be treated as a slave.
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately, they should be servants, as in "public servant." Slave implies they didn't have a choice in taking up the job, or leaving it if it doesn't suit them.
Waaahhhhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm against big government telling people what to! Oh what's that, a privately owned and operated social media site won't guarantee me use of their platform? Pass that law immediately! People are hurting my feelings, please government make it all better.
Nanny State (Score:5, Funny)
Why does snowflake DeSantis want a nanny state to protect him? Why does he oppose free speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Says the idiot who almost certainly doesn't know the political views of the person their talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
No. If you think you can, you are.
There's nothing partisan about pointing out how blatantly this law violates these company's free speech rights. https://lawandcrime.com/high-p... [lawandcrime.com] .
It will never survive the courts though so not too much to worry over.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can always tell an angry boomer by their use of the word "woke". In fact they're the only people still harping about it.
Godbook (Score:2)
They should rebrand themselves as Godbook in Florida, then cite a Commandment that says they're not allowed to repeat lies from the politicians.
Some other platforms (Twitter) have already codified ToS exemptions for politicians anyway. The "public interest" clause. That's why they let them run wild with stuff that would get normal users banned.
Something interesting to note. The Florida law specifies 10x the monetary punishment for denying service to a statewide politician, compared to a local politician. Tw
Won't survive a court challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
The Supreme Court is packed (Score:3)
Point is, don't count on the courts to save us.
Typical GOP bullshit (Score:2)
apply rules consistently
the bill specifies just five major tech companies â" Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon.
And that the bill was also amended to specifically exempt Disney, Universal and any theme park owner that operates a search engine or information service.
Apply our inconsistent rules consistently!
Re: (Score:2)
Next week: Facebookland opens in Florida!
It's a lot of urban blight broken pavement where a tenement was torn down and consists of a fancy sign at the gate of the chain link fence, a seesaw, a closed-down hotdog stand (Reopening Soon forever!), and a kiosk about the definition of the word "hypocrisy."
Opening soon next door: Twitterworld!
1ST Amendment Violation? (Score:2)
That law will likely be found un-Consitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. The Supreme Court has never found common carrier laws (as a category) to be unconstitutional and this bill is a very mild version of a common carrier restriction. Phone companies, for example, are regulated under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, and are not allowed to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone they feel like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol have you seen the supreme court lately?
The other side of the law (Score:2)
They should ban the whole state (Score:2)
Nothing lost.
How Does Section 230 Even Apply? (Score:4, Informative)
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. claim they have no responsibility for what users post, and thus can't be sued for libel, because they are "common carriers" under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. You don't sue the phone company if someone says something false about you over the phone, you sue the person who said it.
But phone companies don't censor what you can and cannot say over the phone. My question is this: once FaceBook et al. start deciding what you can and cannot say on their platforms, doesn't that make them no longer a "common carrier", but more like a publisher? How is it that they can claim protection under section 230, as it would seem they have voluntarily removed themselves from its protection by their own actions?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How Does Section 230 Even Apply? (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. claim they have no responsibility for what users post, and thus can't be sued for libel, because they are "common carriers" under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
No they don't.
1) It's either section 230 of title 47, United States Code (or 47 USC 230) or section 509 of the Communications Decency Act, which is merely a small part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I'd suggest just calling it Section 230 and people will tend to know what you mean.
2) The term 'common carrier' does not appear anywhere in 47 USC 230, and it is a legal term of art with a specific meaning that doesn't pertain. They don't call themselves that.
3) What those sites overwhelmingly care about is that under 47 USC 230(c)(1), they are not treated as publishers of information provided by others. That's it -- not being treated as publishers. That's not even vaguely the same thing as common carriage.
My question is this: once FaceBook et al. start deciding what you can and cannot say on their platforms, doesn't that make them no longer a "common carrier", but more like a publisher?
No, because as I said, they never were and never will be and don't want to be common carriers, and the law says that they're not publishers, period, no matter how they behave.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with social media companies is not so much what they do which is admittedly reprehensible but the fact that they are monopolies. The USA in the past has responded to the problems of monopolies by breaking them up. In this case however there seems to be some reason why this cannot be done. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
How does a free service have a monopoly over another free service?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with social media companies is not so much what they do which is admittedly reprehensible but the fact that they are monopolies. The USA in the past has responded to the problems of monopolies by breaking them up. In this case however there seems to be some reason why this cannot be done. Why is that?
Because the anti-trust laws do not simply require that a company be a monopoly, they require that the monopoly is using unfair or potentially illegal tactics to maintain that monopoly. Simply existing and being successful does not fall under that category. If we did use that logic, then we'd have to break up companies like Valve as well, since Steam has a near-monopoly on delivering games online.
let us review right wing 'arguments' (Score:2, Insightful)
1. covid 19 is not any worse than the flu, the numbers are lying, the vaccine has AIDS in it, the vaccine doesnt work, masks don't work, vaccines have tracking chips, etc etc
2. the oklahoma city bombing didn't happen
3. the sandy hook shooting didn't happen
4. california brush fires are caused by space lasers
5. tornadoes are caused by government weather weapons
6. the democratic party is run by a pedophile ring that donald trump will expose
7. a wife cannot be raped by her husband because marriage allows forcib
Re: (Score:3)
I voted for Trump twice. I will likely vote for DeSantis in 2024.
Thanks for letting me know you're a piece of shit, I guess. (I would not even vote for launching DeSantis into the Sun -- it's too big of a waste of delta-v. Jupiter is easier.)
The bill will get struck down by the courts fairly quickly, for a number of obvious, constitutional and jurisdictional reasons. It will quickly die.
If it's that obvious to you, then why do you support DeSantis, who failed to veto it on such grounds? At a minimum he's employing the power of the state for his own personal political gain so he can use this as a point on his resume and he's going to waste tremendous amounts of state resources in defending it. It's clearly a form
Re: (Score:3)
I always think of Larry Flynt in this situation. Larry said:
"You know, a free press is not freedom for the thought you love, but rather for the thought you hate the most. People need to tolerate the Larry Flynts of the world so they can be free."
The difference is that Larry made his own platform. Larry didn't need to rely on others to carry his message. I think this is a really important distinction - exercise your freedom if you want it and don't blame private entities for not carrying your speech. Fee
Re: (Score:3)
Have you even read section 230? I see that you believe in your position but that does not make you correct.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda... [eff.org]
Forcing a private web site to carry your speech is no different that requiring speech you don't like on your front lawn. My front lawn is publicly accessible, anyone could step off the side walk right onto my lawn - heck the neighbor's dog has shit on it several times. Should I be required to allow my neighbor to stand on my lawn and say whatever he wants just because