Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

[kaz]

Democrats running around screaming free markets! Free markets! Just unbelievable. Literally, as if they care about free markets.

They are just cheering because it's working, Republicans are being silenced.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?

The football players were only silenced AT WORK. No one silenced them other than that. Or proposed it.

Be more specific about the political protests you do at work

By that standard, I'm routinely "silenced" at work. There's a whole host of things I can't say or do while I'm on the company dime. Fairly certain that's true for 99% of working people in the world.i

i dare say most people on tweeter or facebook don’t work there

with that said i have no problem with an employer firing someone for what they say on those sites

I think it depends on what they say. Obviously, if the employee is on social media badmouthing their employer, or advocating illegal activity, then I'd say firing is reasonable. I'll even go so far as to say I wouldn't have a problem with firing someone who's being overtly racist or sexist.

When we get down to firing people for expressing opinions the employer doesn't like, that's something different. I would consider that a wrongful firing, and support the employee suing on those grounds.

As someone who owned five businesses, just FYI, it's not that simple.

So for example I owned a graphic design company. Two of our big customers were Democrat candidates and Planned Parenthood. My lead designer asked not to work for Planned Parenthood because she's Catholic and they do abortions. I said sure, we assigned the work to a different designer and all was good.

But suppose she was on social media basing Planned Parenthood and saying she worked for my company. If she didn't bash my company but bashed a client, that would have been a major issue for us.

Yeah, I hate Democrats, but business is business, I still don't post politics ever on social media. I don't even "like" political posts.

Short story made long, but the answer is that I made my rules clear in the employee handbook. Laws vary by State, but most rules are enforceable if they are clear and consistently applied

 

[bripat9643]

Amazing: This stupid thread is now 40 pages long.
And the Angry Lil Bird-Flipper Boy seriously believes this shit.
It’d be sad were it not so GD tragic!!

The fact that you believe the shit you spew is far more incredible.

 

[WEATHER53]

The State of Florida has no jurisdiction over these companies.

However, these companies do have the right to shut down their services for the entire State of Florida.

The State has full jurisdiction over deceptive and undisclosed trade practices

 

[bripat9643]

Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't "depriving them of cake". Refusing to host a politician's propaganda isn't "silencing them". These are conceits of statists desperately trying to justify their bullying.

This has already been explained to you. If Facebook wants to be a publisher, it can, but it claims to be a common carrier so it can't be sued.

 

[dblack]

Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't "depriving them of cake". Refusing to host a politician's propaganda isn't "silencing them". These are conceits of statists desperately trying to justify their bullying.

This has already been explained to you. If Facebook wants to be a publisher, it can, but claims to be a common carrier so it can't be sued.

Right. Just like the "public accommodation" bullshit.

But I know, I know. It's different when you do it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't "starving them". And refusing to host a politician's propaganda isn't "silencing them". These are conceits of statists desperately trying to justify their bullying.

Pretending to be open to all people, then being deceptive about it is cause for money damages.

 

[bripat9643]

Government has no business forcing websites to follow your vision of "transparent and consistent".

There is no force. There is only liability.

If some of us prefer a website that rejects Trump's bullshit, where do get off forcing the issue? Why do you think you should be able to sue a website for banning you?

They can ban all the bullshit they want. If they want to avoid tort liability, they will do so consistently and transparently.

If some of us prefer a website that rejects Trump's bullshit, where do get off forcing the issue? Why do you think you should be able to sue a website for banning you (non-transparently and inconsistently)? Why do you think they have an obligation to be "transparent and consistent"? Seriously - other than, "I want them to cater to me", what is the moral and legal justification?

This reaction is you abandoning your principles in favor of what you want....no "Trump bullshit" You couldn't give a single rat fuck about liberty.

Like many who have fallen under Trump's spell, you seem to have lost track of what liberty means.

It comes down to you wanting to silence "Trump bullshit" and you are throwing a fit now that Facebook can't just haul off an ban shit without some modicum of notice or consistency, or face tort liability. It's not your money on the hook. It's not Facebooks money either, if Facebook is diligent in being transparent and consistent.

You're mad because you don't get your way. Admit it.

I'm often mad when I don't get my way. But "my way" isn't what you pretend. I don't want to see Trump "silenced". But Facebook isn't doing that. They can't do that. That's the part of your argument that simply isn't true. You guys are butthurt because people don't like what you're selling. Sorry.

Now - the thing you keep dodging: where do you get this idea that websites should be legally obligated to be "transparent and consistent"? Should this apply to everyone? Or just the businesses that Trump has targeted for retribution?

Liar. You want Trump and every other conservative silenced. Yes, Facebook did do that.

If they don't want to be sued, then they need to be consistent. Otherwise they are acting as publishers and can be sued.

How many times do I have to explain that to you?

You don't have a clue what being silenced is. Being banned from Facebook is not being silenced. It just means they, and their users, don't want to listen to your bullshit.

What part of "common carrier" don't you understand?

 

[bripat9643]

Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't "depriving them of cake". Refusing to host a politician's propaganda isn't "silencing them". These are conceits of statists desperately trying to justify their bullying.

This has already been explained to you. If Facebook wants to be a publisher, it can, but claims to be a common carrier so it can't be sued.

Right. Just like the "public accommodation" bullshit.

But I know, I know. It's different when you do it.

That's also wrong, but one issue at a time.

 

[dblack]

Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't "starving them". And refusing to host a politician's propaganda isn't "silencing them". These are conceits of statists desperately trying to justify their bullying.

Pretending to be open to all people, then being deceptive about it is cause for money damages.

Don't worry. As I've said, Democrats agree with you. We'll get a Ministry of Truth after all is said and done.

Hopefully blockchain social media will run out from under the state power grab and put it all beyond their reach.

 

[dblack]

Government has no business forcing websites to follow your vision of "transparent and consistent".

There is no force. There is only liability.

If some of us prefer a website that rejects Trump's bullshit, where do get off forcing the issue? Why do you think you should be able to sue a website for banning you?

They can ban all the bullshit they want. If they want to avoid tort liability, they will do so consistently and transparently.

If some of us prefer a website that rejects Trump's bullshit, where do get off forcing the issue? Why do you think you should be able to sue a website for banning you (non-transparently and inconsistently)? Why do you think they have an obligation to be "transparent and consistent"? Seriously - other than, "I want them to cater to me", what is the moral and legal justification?

This reaction is you abandoning your principles in favor of what you want....no "Trump bullshit" You couldn't give a single rat fuck about liberty.

Like many who have fallen under Trump's spell, you seem to have lost track of what liberty means.

It comes down to you wanting to silence "Trump bullshit" and you are throwing a fit now that Facebook can't just haul off an ban shit without some modicum of notice or consistency, or face tort liability. It's not your money on the hook. It's not Facebooks money either, if Facebook is diligent in being transparent and consistent.

You're mad because you don't get your way. Admit it.

I'm often mad when I don't get my way. But "my way" isn't what you pretend. I don't want to see Trump "silenced". But Facebook isn't doing that. They can't do that. That's the part of your argument that simply isn't true. You guys are butthurt because people don't like what you're selling. Sorry.

Now - the thing you keep dodging: where do you get this idea that websites should be legally obligated to be "transparent and consistent"? Should this apply to everyone? Or just the businesses that Trump has targeted for retribution?

Liar. You want Trump and every other conservative silenced. Yes, Facebook did do that.

If they don't want to be sued, then they need to be consistent. Otherwise they are acting as publishers and can be sued.

How many times do I have to explain that to you?

You don't have a clue what being silenced is. Being banned from Facebook is not being silenced. It just means they, and their users, don't want to listen to your bullshit.

What part of "common carrier" don't you understand?

The part where you just made it up as an excuse. It's like the way they use "public accommodation" to justify the discrimination laws. It just excuse-making. No real principles involved.

 

[dblack]

Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't "depriving them of cake". Refusing to host a politician's propaganda isn't "silencing them". These are conceits of statists desperately trying to justify their bullying.

This has already been explained to you. If Facebook wants to be a publisher, it can, but claims to be a common carrier so it can't be sued.

Right. Just like the "public accommodation" bullshit.

But I know, I know. It's different when you do it.

That's also wrong, but one issue at a time.

What's wrong?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Don't worry. As I've said, Democrats agree with you. We'll get a Ministry of Truth after all is said and done.

That's pretty much what you just advocated for, wanting to get rid of all of "Trump's bullshit" right?

Hopefully blockchain social media will run out from under the state power grab and put it all beyond their reach.

But, that won't shield them from tort liability.

You know, Facebook should just come out and say "we're leftists and we don't give a shit about any views but leftist view and we will ban anything we don't like." Then, nobody can argue deceptive trade and sue them, and we all get to see Facebook admit the truth.

Win win.

 

[bripat9643]

Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't "starving them". And refusing to host a politician's propaganda isn't "silencing them". These are conceits of statists desperately trying to justify their bullying.

Pretending to be open to all people, then being deceptive about it is cause for money damages.

Don't worry. As I've said, Democrats agree with you. We'll get a Ministry of Truth after all is said and done.

Hopefully blockchain social media will run out from under the state power grab and put it all beyond their reach.

We already have a Ministry of Truth, dick head. It's called Facebook.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrats running around screaming free markets! Free markets! Just unbelievable. Literally, as if they care about free markets.

They are just cheering because it's working, Republicans are being silenced.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?

The football players were only silenced AT WORK. No one silenced them other than that. Or proposed it.

Be more specific about the political protests you do at work

By that standard, I'm routinely "silenced" at work. There's a whole host of things I can't say or do while I'm on the company dime. Fairly certain that's true for 99% of working people in the world.

Yep. Faun hasn't given any specifics about how he's allowed to be a leftist dick at work and his employer is fine with it.

Faun?

Maybe he's a paid protester. God knows, it seems that being a leftist dick is literally his only skill in life.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't worry. As I've said, Democrats agree with you. We'll get a Ministry of Truth after all is said and done.

That's pretty much what you just advocated for, wanting to get rid of all of "Trump's bullshit" right?

Hopefully blockchain social media will run out from under the state power grab and put it all beyond their reach.

But, that won't shield them from tort liability.

You know, Facebook should just come out and say "we're leftists and we don't give a shit about any views but leftist view and we will ban anything we don't like." Then, nobody can argue deceptive trade and sue them, and we all get to see Facebook admit the truth.

Win win.

Then can sue Facebook for violation of the common carrier statutes that say Facebook cannot discriminate.

 

[WEATHER53]

Don't worry. As I've said, Democrats agree with you. We'll get a Ministry of Truth after all is said and done.

That's pretty much what you just advocated for, wanting to get rid of all of "Trump's bullshit" right?

Hopefully blockchain social media will run out from under the state power grab and put it all beyond their reach.

But, that won't shield them from tort liability.

You know, Facebook should just come out and say "we're leftists and we don't give a shit about any views but leftist view and we will ban anything we don't like." Then, nobody can argue deceptive trade and sue them, and we all get to see Facebook admit the truth.

Win win.

Yes. It’s their failure to disclose when they invite you in that makes their actions wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Government has no business forcing websites to follow your vision of "transparent and consistent".

There is no force. There is only liability.

If some of us prefer a website that rejects Trump's bullshit, where do get off forcing the issue? Why do you think you should be able to sue a website for banning you?

They can ban all the bullshit they want. If they want to avoid tort liability, they will do so consistently and transparently.

If some of us prefer a website that rejects Trump's bullshit, where do get off forcing the issue? Why do you think you should be able to sue a website for banning you (non-transparently and inconsistently)? Why do you think they have an obligation to be "transparent and consistent"? Seriously - other than, "I want them to cater to me", what is the moral and legal justification?

This reaction is you abandoning your principles in favor of what you want....no "Trump bullshit" You couldn't give a single rat fuck about liberty.

Like many who have fallen under Trump's spell, you seem to have lost track of what liberty means.

It comes down to you wanting to silence "Trump bullshit" and you are throwing a fit now that Facebook can't just haul off an ban shit without some modicum of notice or consistency, or face tort liability. It's not your money on the hook. It's not Facebooks money either, if Facebook is diligent in being transparent and consistent.

You're mad because you don't get your way. Admit it.

I'm often mad when I don't get my way. But "my way" isn't what you pretend. I don't want to see Trump "silenced". But Facebook isn't doing that. They can't do that. That's the part of your argument that simply isn't true. You guys are butthurt because people don't like what you're selling. Sorry.

Now - the thing you keep dodging: where do you get this idea that websites should be legally obligated to be "transparent and consistent"? Should this apply to everyone? Or just the businesses that Trump has targeted for retribution?

Liar. You want Trump and every other conservative silenced. Yes, Facebook did do that.

If they don't want to be sued, then they need to be consistent. Otherwise they are acting as publishers and can be sued.

How many times do I have to explain that to you?

You don't have a clue what being silenced is. Being banned from Facebook is not being silenced. It just means they, and their users, don't want to listen to your bullshit.

What part of "common carrier" don't you understand?

The part where you just made it up as an excuse. It's like the way they use "public accommodation" to justify the discrimination laws. It just excuse-making. No real principles involved.

No one is given protection from being sued by the public accomadation law, and it doesn't give you the option of deciding whether your business is a public accomadation, so the comparison is not applicable.

 

[WEATHER53]

When does the nitty gritty of this take effect?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrats running around screaming free markets! Free markets! Just unbelievable. Literally, as if they care about free markets.

They are just cheering because it's working, Republicans are being silenced.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?

The football players were only silenced AT WORK. No one silenced them other than that. Or proposed it.

Be more specific about the political protests you do at work

By that standard, I'm routinely "silenced" at work. There's a whole host of things I can't say or do while I'm on the company dime. Fairly certain that's true for 99% of working people in the world.i

i dare say most people on tweeter or facebook don’t work there

with that said i have no problem with an employer firing someone for what they say on those sites

I think it depends on what they say. Obviously, if the employee is on social media badmouthing their employer, or advocating illegal activity, then I'd say firing is reasonable. I'll even go so far as to say I wouldn't have a problem with firing someone who's being overtly racist or sexist.

When we get down to firing people for expressing opinions the employer doesn't like, that's something different. I would consider that a wrongful firing, and support the employee suing on those grounds.

As someone who owned five businesses, just FYI, it's not that simple.

So for example I owned a graphic design company. Two of our big customers were Democrat candidates and Planned Parenthood. My lead designer asked not to work for Planned Parenthood because she's Catholic and they do abortions. I said sure, we assigned the work to a different designer and all was good.

But suppose she was on social media basing Planned Parenthood and saying she worked for my company. Ifhe didn't bash my company but bashed a client, but clearly that would have been a major issue for us.

Yeah, I hate Democrats, but business is business, I still don't post politics ever on social media. I don't even "like" political posts.

Short story made long, but the answer is that I made my rules clear in the employee handbook. Laws vary by State, but most rules are enforceable if they are clear and consistently applied

I'd say bashing Planned Parenthood while saying that she worked for your company would fall under the heading of "badmouthing her employer".

On the other hand, simply bashing Planned Parenthood, from her personal social media account without mentioning your company at all, would be something else entirely.

And no, of course nothing is ever simple. That's a big part of why we have courts in the first place.

 

[kaz]

Facebook can't silence people. Governments, however, can. Here's an example: Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', opposition says

Any questions?

Yes. Why isn't it working? Why are Republicans being silenced on social media if only government can silence them?

They aren't being silenced. That is a lie. Sorry.

So yet again the question you keep hiding from.

So no one is silencing them, but you actually believe that with all the Trumpsters you rail about and that half the country being Republican, it's just free market lack of interest. There is no social media interest in Trump or Republicans. You actually believe that?