Texas governor signs bill prohibiting social media giants from blocking users based on viewpoint

Yes, they are creating laws to mandate private companies make their resources available free of charge to the representatives of their political party and also that those reps should be immune against enforcement of Terms Of Service.

Its like a wedding where people are invited and requested to wear suit and tie, but a law mandates that Republicans can go in shorts and tee shirt.

 

Just so we're on the same page, you are referring to:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

How about applying the libel laws to people who post false info ? If you post on a social media platform, you should be responsible for the accuracy of your post.
You should have to provide verified personal identification info and any other subscriber should have the right to sue you for posting false info.
That would solve the Section 230 issue for the platform, right ?

 

Congrats, good comeback! But here's the problems with what you're saying now: Who gets to decide what is "false info"? Especially these days when the truth is kind of a relative, wishy-washy thing? Take Dr. Fauci and the CDC for instance...one day the truth is this, the next day it's that. Also, if everyone had to post their identity information, I doubt many people would use the platforms at all. Which, on the other hand, might actually be a good thing...so maybe you have a good idea there.

 

It's true that my response was , sort of, off the cuff. Of course, the motivation of the Republican governors in TX and FL is so ridiculously transparent and partisan that the suggestion that it is motivated by a wish to revoke section 230 protections for social media platforms is equally transparent and partisan.

The identity information issue is not such a big stumbling block. If the platform is the keeper of the id info, then it need only be released in the event of a lawsuit.

The difference between truth and accuracy is not such a big issue. For example, if it is suddenly incumbent on the poster to verify the truth of the information they post, they might pause before posting 2nd or 3rd hand information. In fact, posters might have to resort to different wording that might dilute the credibility of the post.

For example: "I heard that there was massive voter fraud in Arizona" doesn't sound as dramatic as "There is evidence of massive voter fraud in Arizona !".

 

Texas governor signs bill prohibiting social media giants from blocking users based on viewpoint

Unfortunately the Texas governor has no power over social media giants who operate within the law. Actually, the federal government doesn't either. Only the people who use the web sites have such power. But those people either don't understand the problem or don't care about it. Might as well move on to another issue. This one is a waste of time and effort.

 

They push for freedom of speech. Unfortunately the private sector has no requirement to protect free speech. Politics is ugly.

 

I dont know how he intends to enforce his laws.

You are free to speak, but you are not free to use other peoples property and resources to spread your speech around the globe. Why do you think you have such right? Why do you believe private companies should not have the right to regulate how their property and resources are used? Its time Republicans stop playing the victim all the time. Either follow the rules, or use a different platform. Putting the government foot on the throats of private business is the wrong way to do this. Its the Marxist way.

 

They have immunity against prosecution now, remove that and the playing field will be level. i.e. thay can't be sued.

 

So you think Fox News should have to host Rachel Maddow on their airwaves ...

No? Didn't think so. Always depends on who is being forced to do what, isn't it.

 

Yes, I totally agree. So, why is Biden banning people from social media and forcing people to get vaccinated against their will while, at the same time, letting vaccinated people spread the virus everywhere?

 

Should private companies be allowed to refuse to hire blacks?

Should Verizon, say, be allowed to refuse to transmit political phone calls it doesn't like?

 

Unfortunately they have no authoritarian power to do so. The best they can do is continue to threaten the tort liability laws protecting them in hopes of motivating them to change their ways. So far that hasn't worked.

 

Does this mean that PF will not ban people now?

 

Prosecute them for what? Deciding what they will allow on their web site? How far do you think that will go? There are right leaning social media sites as well. Perhaps convincing conservatives that it is in their interest to abandon the big guys and support the new ones. As far as I know millions of conservatives use Twitter, Facebook et. al.

 

You are inventing my beliefs. I have never said that the private sector should be required to protect free speech. I have said the opposite over and over. I have never said that the Texas law makes any sense either. Please don't criticize what I don't say. If you want to invent personal beliefs please leave me out of it.

 

Same rules apply to everyone, but Abbott wants to change that. He created a law to grant immunity from rules for Republican politicians. Its absurd if you think about it.

 

look up and study section 230 immunities. When they start performing as a news agency they are held to a higher standard, they are not just an open platform.. they pick and choose the stories , thus bending the narrative to their veiws and dostorting the popularity of othe rviews.

 

I'm not against repealing section 230. But the Texas law doesn't do that. It can't do that. I don't think it can get away with prosecuting a web site for deciding what it will allow and what it won't. We are still a nation of freedom despite the attacks that freedom suffers.

 

What does "same rules apply to everyone" mean. The government is interfering in corporate policy in each case.

Does Gov. Abbot's law allow Facebook to censor Democratic politicians?

 

Which is exactly what CNN,FOX and other news agencies have been doing for decades.

 

Our friend on the left isn't fooling anyone.

I don't have a problem with D bag billionaires, I have a problem with them colluding with the White House (as admitted by the White House) to decide what is censored and what is allowed pursuant to the Democrat Ministry of Truth.

In essence, it's not big tech censoring, it's the government.....and that's illegal. Texas is trying to fix that.

 

You have it all backwards. "Authoritarianism" in this case - is media companies blocking viewpoints. Those trying to stop this Hitler reminiscient behavior are fighting for your freedom.

 

There's not that many steps.

ONLY Step: Shut up about MY freedom and rights while I take yours.

 

Same rules for everyone = if you violate the rules you get banned. Just because Republicans play the victim doesn't mean others are not being banned. They are

Its a bill to grant immunity to politicians with "conservative views’, so the old rules still apply to Dems. Not that conspiracy and misinformation is 'conservative views’, but in the minds of Republicans they are becoming one and same.