I appreciate necessary government. Whenever something becomes so big that it has a persistent impact on nearly all of our lives government must become involved. We have federal agencies for transportation, food, drugs, firearms, and a host of others. Yet when it comes to the internet, big tech lobbies heavily to keep regulation off of their backs ensuring that they are governed only by the most antiquated of telecom laws, many written for an era when freakin telegrams were our best means of communication.
Absolutely. As long as they don’t have 230 protection. When they have 230 protections that’s not accurate. They can have one or the other but not both.
They’re successful under the predicate that they are a platform without the right to edit and are using their 230 protections to become more successful WHILE THEY VIOLATE those same requirements under 230. Your argument is correct IF they weren’t receiving 230 protections. But they ARE receiving those protections so your argument is objectively false. Either Facebook and Twitter and the like can edit posts and lose 230 protections or they don’t edit posts and keep 230. But they CANNOT legally do both.
Of course a hold is on it. Who didn't see that coming? Anyone really expect Big Tech to NOT challenge it? Now, I don't know what is in the bill beyond Florida legislature and DeSantis wanting Facebook et al to not censor political discourse of people running for office or in office. So I'm not going to comment on the bill itself just yet.
To you that is the only valid comment. I like to examine things directly for myself before making a comment on them. I'm not a lemming listening to talking heads at some media outlet. Remember, there are limits for ALL Rights. Knowing that I will read the law for myself.
No he didn't. NOTHING in the new law states anyone can be protected regardless of their conduct or writings. This is how you know people become desperate. They have to fabricate a claim to try and make a fake point.
When did it become unconstitutional to stop big tech from banning political rivals from their right to free speech?
It's difficult to conceptualize a law regulating a company whose product is available free to anyone with a device, virtually anywhere in the world. Of course these laws exist in totalitarian countries, but this is the first time a state has tried regulating the internet. So this must be looked at like any other regulated business within the state of Florida. Can Facebook decline to do business in Florida? How would it do that? Who would stand to lose more, Zuckerberg or DeSantis?
This DeSantis legislation isn't intended to rectify any injustice done to Republicans. It is a political tool to make it look like DeSantis is fighting for MAGA supporters. There's no way the Supreme Court is going to let this pass. The law prevents a social network from banning a political candidate who violates its internal rules. This law opens the door to the worst possible excesses and violates the Constitution.
What's fascinating about MAGA is that you claim to be defenders of the Constitution but also defend people who openly attack it. I'm not sure where to begin, except to say that a government cannot interfere with the internal governance of a company unless the state has proven that Twitter/Facebook's code of ethics itself violates the Constitution. This is absolutely not the case.
Yes, Facebook can actually decline to do business in Florida. All you have to do is block ISP's coming out from that area. Of course just like any other internet thing it can be gotten around by users using VPN. And no, this isn't the first time a State has tried to regulate the internet. They've been doing it with taxes for quiet awhile now whenever someone buys a product. Not saying that is the same as the issue here. Just giving an example of the internet being regulated in the US. As for who would stand to lose more? Zuckerberg or DeSantis? That really depends. Just talking about them individually prolly DeSantis. But, if this bill is allowed to stand then other States will start to make similar laws. In which case Zuckerberg will start losing, or start being more neutral and not lose anything, monetary wise anyways. He'll still lose something...narrative control.
Gibberish. Has nothing to do with the question I posted The government interferes with businesses every day. What planet are you on? If a business refuses to bake a cake for an LBGTQ organization they interfere. But you're just dodging the question. So you can't answer the question? When did it become unconstitutional to stop big tech from banning political rivals from their right to free speech?
Like I said, I'll read the law for myself. As to whether SCOTUS lets it pass or not...I stopped trying to decide which way they will swing when they let the Mandate stand in the ACA/Obamacare.
More fabrications you are just making up to defend a fake claim. NOTHING in the law makes ANY claim about not banning a candidate who violates its internal rules. NOTHING. What else are you going to fabricate?
And what was the court's decision on this? Do you remember? Trump violated the internal rules of Facebook and Twitter. And like any member, he was banned. DeSantis wants to create two categories of citizens on the internet. This is another element that's unconstitutional. Spin it any way you want, this law will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
The legislation, which was signed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in May, prohibits social-media sites from banning any candidate running for public office in Florida, subjecting violators to fines of as much as $250,000 a day. Obviously, you commented without having read the law...
Yes, I should have thought about that for a minute. Lol. Yeah, but no. I'm talking about regulating a company's product within state lines, while that product exists in digital form in the ether, available to everyone free of charge. Like I said, hard to conceptualize. Can a politician in Georgia "piggyback" a Florida politician's Twitter account thus taking advantage of the law? What about replies, likes, retweets, etc.? How the hell can a Florida law regulate all that? Doesn't make sense to me. Depends how much money social media generates in Florida. If Facebook and Twitter pull out, and people lose jobs, DeSantis has problems.
I haven't read the law, but from what I've read here it protects candidates. If the law is allowed to stand, anyone with propaganda to spread need only run for office. What stops someone in Florida from being a proxy for out of state disinformation? Does DeSantis hope to become a proxy for Trump through this law? The law makes little sense. It's the internet, not a Miami-Dade liquor license.
My theory is that DeSantis has known all along that this legislation has no chance of success. That wasn't the goal. What he wants is to portray himself as a Republican who fights for MAGA supporters. And when he loses, he can do what Trump did: claim that the system is biased against conservatives and that he's a victim of Big Tech power.
The Republican attempts to subvert the Constitution are perfectly understandable. Not being able to win anything more that local elections and having to gerrymander majorities to protect their national seats, they continue to resort to slimy, underhanded tactics to suppress votes, limit free speech against them, all the while claiming to be the oppressed ones. They loved the Citizens United because they though it would let them pour more dark money into their campaigns. They loved busting unions because unions predominantly support Democrats, with good reason. Now that social media won’t put up with their lies and fascist content, they seek to restore their ability to saturate social platforms with lies, even if that means accepting help from foreign trolls. They LOVE the idea of making educational institutions “report” on whether or not they allow “diversity “ of expression on campus. Just so they can claim that conservative viewpoints are suppressed by big bad liberal universities. This won’t survive a constitutional challenge either. Republicans and conservatives only support the Constitution when it supports their viewpoints and values. What their values are is difficult to say because of the extreme hypocrisy they demonstrate at a constantly accelerating rate. It was, after all, cons who invented and jumped on board the new phrases “fake news” and “alternative facts”.
The word that jumped out at me there was 'regulation'. I'm confused. Why is THIS industry in need of regulation when so many that are designed to protect the physical health of Americans have been scrapped? I thought the GOP (and certainly Trump) campaign on cutting regulations.
No this site does a very good job of not editing someone’s opinions as long as there’s no personal attack or direct incitement of violence. Otherwise we are free to post essentially what we want. That’s why I like this site. That’s not true for Twitter and Facebook and you know it.
