Preventing some IDIOT (like Trump) from contaminating social media with his imbeclic brain diarrhea does NOT mean "their thumbs are on the political scales". Bottom line, if somebody doesn't like the policies of FB or Twitter, then don't use it. ^Problem solved.
If that was all this was about, you might come close to having a point. But it's not just about Trump. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/facebook-perdue-loeffler-ad-election-ban-georgia "Facebook temporarily disabled a Republican advertising effort in the Georgia Senate runoffs days before the election." As just ONE of many examples.
Oh well. Isn't it a super-bummer that those Gosh-Dang Libruls beat the RW to the punch when it came to inventing Facebook? Ya snooze, ya lose... Better luck next time.
You believe the state can and should force a Jewish baker to make a swastika cake for a neo-nazi birthday party - what's the difference? Say he who supports placing unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
What's hilarious about the decision is that big tech is silencing free speech and the judge says that this law limits big techs free speech.
I can remember when the internet WAS a place of "free speech", free exchange of ideas, and then...THARS BIG MONEY TO HAD ON THAT THAR INTERNET THINGY!!! Time overdue for some old fashioned trust bustin' in the public interest, contrary to popular belief businesses and corporations DON'T sit at the right hand of God.
Social networks have internal rules like any other company. This forum has them too. If you break these rules, you will be banned. DeSantis asks that a political candidate be protected regardless of their conduct or writings. Obviously, this is unconstitutional and his law will be defeated in the Supreme Court.
I think they'd risk being punished as well by these algorithms that keep "accidentally" banning conservatives, too.
Yes. Rules like not baking cakes for neo-nazis. -You- believe the state can and should force a Jewish baker to make a swastika cake for a neo-nazi birthday party. What's the difference?
Gosh. the only observation I can make is that you also don't seem familiar with the law, or why this ruling effects it. No worries. Judges will get to use this precedent as justification for enjoining the socials in federal court where they can now be legally held liable for their conduct just like every other publisher out there. As for "unconstitutional" I would suggest you know no such thing.
Another small government conservative wanting big government to punish companies for being too successful.
Your characterization here is laughable here. Government shouldn't be in the business of artificially protecting companies that are abusing their civic trust that government provided them. And shouldn't government be in the business of allowing for robust debate? When did it become, in your mind, ok to denigrate your political opponents and then shield your own side by use of government force to stop being responded to?
Yes, when govt forces Fox to give some liberals a show, I’ll take your complaints seriously. And why would owning an amusement park suddenly change the rules??? That part is just ridiculous lol
Fox isn't held to the same legal standard that Twitter is. You know this, and yet you continue to trot out this false narrative. I understand you enjoy silencing folks. It's what you think you are entitled to. Nothing more, nothing less. So explain why we have to suffer the anti science narratives of the democratic machine vis a vis covid, and no one else can actually discuss anything but what the WHO or CDC have said? Honestly the number of flip flops about what is, or isn't acceptable or policy is staggering. And of course the actual science and the forensic examination of the history show that the government protected sites all used their platform to continuously present a set of facts that both ignored science and endangered the public. When do you suppose that twitter/fb/google/ et al will be held accountable for those crimes against the world?
Say whatever you want, but Twitter isn’t obligated to give you platform anymore than msnbc is. Twitter should just buy an amusement park, and then it’ll be fine! Lmao
You know that you've lost the argument, and yet you still believe in your right to continue to spread this kind of falsehood. We get it. You don't understand the law and why twitter and fox news aren't equal or equivalent organizations under the law. It simply is because you think you can express a conclusion of the law that doesn't exist. Most folks call this behavior fraud.
If the law doesn’t let twitter do this, why didn’t trump admin stop them? Where are the charges? Why is Florida making new laws if it’s already illegal! And again, wtf does an amusement park have to do with it??!
We get it. You don't now the law. Nuf said. Trying to change the subject to ask other spurious questions doesn't aid you here.
