Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How would you know whether he's smart?Quit being stupid. It is the Republicans that are the moral relativists. For instance, it is perfectly fine for a company, like say "My Pillow", to step into the political arena and broadcasts their beliefs. But damn first time a company stands up against, say the Georgia election law, you got Republicans like Ted Cruz threatening to punish them. That is hypocritical. Just like this bullshit from little boy DeSantis. Because make no mistake about it, he is a tiny little boy.
He wants to force media companies, especially social media, to air his bullshit. But first time someone starts broadcasting about his tiny little pecker he will be screaming for censorship. You Trumpsters have no morals, ZIPPO. You stand for absolutely nothing, your ethics are as fluid as a overflowing river. It would be sad really, if it were so damn dangerous. You have not made America Great again, you have made America a damn cesspool, and you are more than willing to wallow around in that shit like a pig, regardless of how much you stink up the place.
Desantis is ambitious, but not smart.. He thinks he can ride in on Trump's coatails.. Law school didn't make him intelligence .
I have seen this before at Yale.. Good with book learning but missing out in character and morality.
You have to be smart to get into Harvard, but smart isn't enough. I have friends, classmates and relatives who went to Harvard. Sadly, if you can make the cut academically they can't get rid of you. The same is true at Yale.
I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.
The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.
Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.
Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.
I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS
Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.
this is not a Republican or Democrat thing.
Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?
Big tech fucked up. Big tech should not have been playing the games they were playing. Now they get no liability protection.
I'll be sure to work up some tears and snot on behalf of big tech and their loss of government protection. How sad.
This is very juvenile.. Facebook doesn't want to be a party to lies and slander, character assassination dangerous medical advice.. They have that right. You should start your own platform that admires that sort of garbage.
well that’s not true. they simply want to be a party to the views they agree with and censor others
which is fine and their right
they can publish and edit whatever they want
but they should be treated just like other publishers and not get extra protections and immunities
There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.
You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.
Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed
thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .
Ever read the terms before you click, I Agree? I don't.
www.facebook.com
The terms are illegal. Communications law does not allow them to censor for anything that isn't illegal.
Oh, and it exempts anyone running a theme park because Florida government is basically that corrupt.
Good point. So the several big theme parks did get to them on this.
I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.
If I was big tech I would stop doing business in an unfriendly business state.
California?
Did they pass a bill which regulates business that way?
Who cares if they did?
Why is desantis telling business what it can or can’t do?
how about standing in white America with a BLM MESSAGE?
Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.
Great, so you'll take my challenge that all the other leftists have turned down. Go into a major US city wearing a MAGA hat and spend the day shopping and dining. Since the problem is Republicans, you'll be perfectly fine. Trust me. Do it and report back
the guy is a dumbass.......
If you can’t identify the dumbass, you might be a racist.
Wow. Let’s see the fact denial dance from libbies now.This is entirely incorrect. Like, entirely.That's what rule 230 says. They are presenting themselves as common carriers. Preventing people from using their platform because they support trump is like the telephone company telling Trump supporters they can't use the telephone.
Let’s start with the fact that there is no rule 230. It’s section 230. You can’t even get basic nomenclature rights. Common carrier status is an entirely different issue and has no relevance here.
You are simply uninformed.
Wrong:
47 U.S. Code § 201 - Service and charges
(a)
It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes.
(b)
All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful: Provided, That communications by wire or radio subject to this chapter may be classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, Government, and such other classes as the Commission may decide to be just and reasonable, and different charges may be made for the different classes of communications: Provided further, That nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall be construed to prevent a common carrier subject to this chapter from entering into or operating under any contract with any common carrier not subject to this chapter, for the exchange of their services, if the Commission is of the opinion that such contract is not contrary to the public interest: Provided further, That nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall prevent a common carrier subject to this chapter from furnishing reports of positions of ships at sea to newspapers of general circulation, either at a nominal charge or without charge, provided the name of such common carrier is displayed along with such ship position reports. The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.
The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.
Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.
Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.
I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS
Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.
this is not a Republican or Democrat thing.
Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?
Big tech fucked up. Big tech should not have been playing the games they were playing. Now they get no liability protection.
I'll be sure to work up some tears and snot on behalf of big tech and their loss of government protection. How sad.
This is very juvenile.. Facebook doesn't want to be a party to lies and slander, character assassination dangerous medical advice.. They have that right. You should start your own platform that admires that sort of garbage.
well that’s not true. they simply want to be a party to the views they agree with and censor others
which is fine and their right
they can publish and edit whatever they want
but they should be treated just like other publishers and not get extra protections and immunities
There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.
You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.
Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed
thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .
Ever read the terms before you click, I Agree? I don't.
The terms are illegal. Communications law does not allow them to censor for anything that isn't illegal.
You've been citing section 230 for some time now.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.
The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.
Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.
Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.
I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS
Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.
this is not a Republican or Democrat thing.
Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?
Big tech fucked up. Big tech should not have been playing the games they were playing. Now they get no liability protection.
I'll be sure to work up some tears and snot on behalf of big tech and their loss of government protection. How sad.
This is very juvenile.. Facebook doesn't want to be a party to lies and slander, character assassination dangerous medical advice.. They have that right. You should start your own platform that admires that sort of garbage.
well that’s not true. they simply want to be a party to the views they agree with and censor others
which is fine and their right
they can publish and edit whatever they want
but they should be treated just like other publishers and not get extra protections and immunities
There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.
You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.
Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed
thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .
Ever read the terms before you click, I Agree? I don't.
The terms are illegal. Communications law does not allow them to censor for anything that isn't illegal.
You've been citing section 230 for some time now.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
You never say what things are but only that the poster is dumb and wrongSocial media companies aren’t common carriers, dumb ass.Wrong
Cool - so if create a sock here, and claim I'm from Florida, I can't be banned! Troll on!
Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.
Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”www.foxbusiness.com
Smile
When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.
If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.
From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."
As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.
If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.
Is that like, "You agree to ALL of Googles terms" and "ALL of Microsofts terms" and all of AT&T's terms" to use their products and services?
You either agree or you can't use their essential services. Some choice huh?
Except not being able to use this forum is a long way from being denied access to an "essential service".
Well then I would say that is a reflection on Yale. They need someone like Harvard's Sandel. HIs class is required, and hundreds of thousands sign up for it online. Too bad it was not a requirement for law school students like Desantis.Quit being stupid. It is the Republicans that are the moral relativists. For instance, it is perfectly fine for a company, like say "My Pillow", to step into the political arena and broadcasts their beliefs. But damn first time a company stands up against, say the Georgia election law, you got Republicans like Ted Cruz threatening to punish them. That is hypocritical. Just like this bullshit from little boy DeSantis. Because make no mistake about it, he is a tiny little boy.
He wants to force media companies, especially social media, to air his bullshit. But first time someone starts broadcasting about his tiny little pecker he will be screaming for censorship. You Trumpsters have no morals, ZIPPO. You stand for absolutely nothing, your ethics are as fluid as a overflowing river. It would be sad really, if it were so damn dangerous. You have not made America Great again, you have made America a damn cesspool, and you are more than willing to wallow around in that shit like a pig, regardless of how much you stink up the place.
Desantis is ambitious, but not smart.. He thinks he can ride in on Trump's coatails.. Law school didn't make him intelligence .
I have seen this before at Yale.. Good with book learning but missing out in character and morality.
Here is the thing. Desantis is a punk. No wonder he idolizes Trump. Trump is a punk too. That is what really flips me out. How can people be consumed with an obvious punk. I mean I have spent the last two years studying morality, a big part of that with Sandel. Trump is not a moral person. He has no ethics. The only person he cares about is himself. When he takes the podium and openly mocks someone with a disability you see all that you should have to see. The Trump supporters willingness to abandon every single principle of morality simply to gain support for positions they might have, like feeling left out, or losing their "white" majority, or combating immigrants in the workforce, they don't reveal strengths, they reveal weakness. They can own all the guns in the world, have all the money they could possibly need, but if they support a punk like Trump they deserve everything they have coming to them. Karma is a bitch, she will get her due.
I don’t care. They’re publishers. What they say is irrelevant to what they are.They maintain they aren’t publishers
I believe I’ve said repeatedly that Facebook is a published.You never say what things are but only that the poster is dumb and wrong
You don't know what the word means, or you're just a lying douchebag who deliberately uses it incorrectly.Sure you do, that's why you go around telling people that you're a libertarian, and all the libertarians say "no you aren't."
I just don't give a shit what you choose to label me, that's all.
Listen - labels aside, just know that I'm opposed to your bullshit. Whatever it is you are thinking of when you call yourself a "libertarian", has nothing to do with the word as I know it. Frankly, I think you're just really dumb and incapable of understanding the core ideas of libertarian ideology. I'm sure you see it differently, and that's ok. As long as we're clear we're on opposite sides.
This has NOTHING to do with equal time or even allowing equal content.Wait a minute. There used to be something called equal time, or what was called the fairness doctrine. It required media companies to provide equal time to matters that involved the public's interest, including political candidates. You know who eliminated that provision? The Reagan administration. So piss off. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.They are not forcing anything except requiring them to platform all political candidates. All this does is provide for civil liability.This isn’t about free speech. It’s about government forcing industry to serve the interests of a political party.Of course, we all know the real reason you oppose this law is that you are a fucking NAZI who likes having the opposition censored and doesn't give a damn about freedom of speech.
Which is, wait for it, a little fascist.
It just requires social media to be transparent or pay damages.
Wait a minute. There used to be something called equal time, or what was called the fairness doctrine. It required media companies to provide equal time to matters that involved the public's interest, including political candidates. You know who eliminated that provision? The Reagan administration. So piss off. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.They are not forcing anything except requiring them to platform all political candidates. All this does is provide for civil liability.This isn’t about free speech. It’s about government forcing industry to serve the interests of a political party.Of course, we all know the real reason you oppose this law is that you are a fucking NAZI who likes having the opposition censored and doesn't give a damn about freedom of speech.
Which is, wait for it, a little fascist.
It just requires social media to be transparent or pay damages.
This no name forum that only a few dozen people really use is nothing compared to Facebook and twitter who have the entire country wrapped around their fingers. ATT was a private company too, but they can't cut off your service because they don't like that you use it to call people and solicit votes for Trump.
Facebook has become so large and influential that the laws have to change to reflect it. They can't edit content to their discretion and then claim 230 immunity because they are a neutral platform.
Facebook is not US Message Board.Nope. He just stuck a dagger into the belly of the big tech monster.Nazi liberals are going to hate this
This is a joke.. DeSantis is playing for a headline.
You ready to sue US Message Board if they kick you off?
They are the same type of entity. US Message Board can ban a user or take down a post that violates the terms of the agreement. Facebook can do the same thing.
You obviously haven't read the law. No worries, I expected no more. Democrats never research what you are saying, you just make it up
It will be declared unconstitutional. Social media has free speech rights as well.Try reading the Constitution.
The fairness doctrine is irrelevant.Wait a minute. There used to be something called equal time, or what was called the fairness doctrine. It required media companies to provide equal time to matters that involved the public's interest, including political candidates. You know who eliminated that provision? The Reagan administration. So piss off. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.They are not forcing anything except requiring them to platform all political candidates. All this does is provide for civil liability.This isn’t about free speech. It’s about government forcing industry to serve the interests of a political party.Of course, we all know the real reason you oppose this law is that you are a fucking NAZI who likes having the opposition censored and doesn't give a damn about freedom of speech.
Which is, wait for it, a little fascist.
It just requires social media to be transparent or pay damages.
The Fairness Doctrine did not required networks to give equal time to opposing views. Just opposing views,
However it was still a weapon .
