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.
It's happening in at least 5 states, with more set to join in, + federal legislation is still making its way through US Congress committees. Has an excellent chance to become law, with rare situation of Republicans and Democrats both in support.
Government, especially local governments, cannot dictate to a company that provides a worldwide service on how they must conduct their business. I'm very conservative, but this is too far for me to support. Nobody has to be on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media. It's optional.
Even if this stands in court, all these outlets would need to do is block anybody who lists themselves from the state of Florida. Just refuse to let them create an account, and cancel accounts from anybody in that state.
But new laws are set to do just that.
Bodyslam? LOL!!
The 1st amendment protects your freedom of speech from the gov't. It does not have any effect on what happens on private property.
I think their reasons are different.
It's getting a lot bigger than Desantis and Florida. legislation is cooking up in the Senate with Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) et al in the Commerce Committee. Don't presume it's just a Republican proposal. Lots of Democrats have had their skirmishes with social media hotshots too.If I were Twitter I’d ban Desantes just for fun.
Democrats call for Congress to rein in, break up Big Tech
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic lawmakers are calling for Congress to rein in Big Tech, possibly forcing Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple to break up their businesses, while making it harder for them to acquire others and imposing new rules to safeguard competition.apnews.com
Warner, Hirono, Klobuchar Announce the SAFE TECH Act to Reform Section 230
WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) announced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (SAFE TECH) Act to reform Section 230 and allow social media companies to be held accountable for...www.warner.senate.gov
FALSE! The restriction of freedom of speech is coming from Twitter, Facebook et al big techs, and in glarinkgly outrageous ways, such as deplatforming the POTUS, while allowing the leaders of China and Iran to speak.Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.So you want freedom of speech restricted.
Feb. 20, 2021 - Today U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) announced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (SAFE TECH) Act to reform Section 230 and allow social media companies to be held accountable for enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms.I think their reasons are different.
Republicans are whining about supposed discrimmination.
Dems, I think, are more concerned about things along the line of anti-trust.
I think we need to rethink the regulation of these tech giants.
You can't call it a bill of attainder if the definition of social media is broad enough to include multiple parties or a class of commerce.Asked and answered.And they are not. Social media is not just Facebook.But those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liabilityyou can sue anybody for anything.I think some folks didn't like it....what's your point? I am not seeing the connection here. Facebook is free to have requirements of their employees as well. Facebook employees can sue Facebook....just like Kap was free to sue the NFL.Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.maybe
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.
but that doesn’t negate the fact that all that takes place on facebook and tweeter as well, and they shouldn’t be above the law and protected from liability
That's the point.. Facebook doesn't want the liability associated with lies, slander and bad medical advice. Trump needs to take that on himself.. He's trying to undermine the election process. Facebook doesn't want to be party to that.
Trump should take on the liability of his lies and conspiracy theories.
No, that's NOT the point, because Facebook doesn't currently face any liabilities associated with the content posted by its users. Basically, you're doing the same dishonest shit they're trying to: demanding that they get to act like publishers, while trying to cloak your bigotry in the mantle of "platform".
You have no business accusing anyone else of being a liar, given that you've never said a truthful word in all the time you've been spewing shit on this board. Oh, and the word "lie" is not defined as "saying things I don't like". Good to know that your knowledge of the English language is as extensive as your knowledge of the law.
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
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
what we however is talking about something different all together. We are talking about consumers being able to sue Facebook. Just like consumers are free to sue the New Yorker, or NY Times....why do you continue to think that Facebook should be immune, be treated differently and get better protections?
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Govt can make laws creating a cause of action
this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.
Article 1, Section 9.
Unless now you are admitting that they are a complete monopoly?
Read the thread.
Show the numbers from a valid source.Facebook and Twitter are global companies. Florida is barely going to register.
No, but they can sue if they are censored, while not violating TOS.So...on forums like this, posters can violate TOS if they live in Florida?
No they aren't.True. And those disclaimers are treated as speech by the platforms for which they can be held liable.They put disclaimers on posts they don’t agree with. That is “ developing content” on other users posts.
Unless the post says “and now you should stalk this person” it’s pretty hard.Wouldn’t be that hard...just save the posts.Good luck proving intent.Doxing is punishing you personal information online with the intent to get fellow users to stalk and harass another user. So...yes it is.Doxxing and stalking are not the same thing. I don’t think Facebook can sue Facebook for breaking Facebook’s terms of service.Stalking is a crime. Facebooks user rules say you may not perpetrate illegal acts on their platform. Therefore since they allow it. They are breaking a users terms of service. And can be sued.If you say so. Still would be unconstitutional to sue because of it.It’s against their site rules... but they allow it for “ certain” political groups.Nope. Doxxing is constitutionally protected speech.It does when Facebook allows groups that engage in this to do it on their platform and knowingly allows them to go after small business owners with the intent to hurt their businesses.Doxxing isn’t very nice, but it hardly incurs legal liability.Facebook allowing users on their platform to Dox other users for one thing.Monetary damages caused by what? You guys don’t even know.What do you think you’re suing them for?And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?For Monetary Damages, wtf, didn't you read the thread title?
It’s absolutely amazing how basically every time you post it’s wrong. I mean, you’re like a broken clock that still manages to be wrong all day.No they aren't.
That’s not a restriction of the freedom of speech. Speech which occurs on someone else’s property is not free.FALSE! The restriction of freedom of speech is coming from Twitter, Facebook et al big techs, and in glarinkgly outrageous ways, such as deplatforming the POTUS, while allowing the leaders of China and Iran to speak.Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.So you want freedom of speech restricted.
Great. So let’s arrest Trump then.Well, what could possibly be the other intent? Of course Trump was wrong to give that out, if it was intended to be private.Intent to harm is a bit of a sticking point.Yes.You mean like when Trump told everyone Lindsey Graham’s phone number?Disclosure of private information without permission? Ummm, yeah. That is illegal, at least here in Texas.Doxxing isn’t very nice, but it hardly incurs legal liability.Facebook allowing users on their platform to Dox other users for one thing.Monetary damages caused by what? You guys don’t even know.What do you think you’re suing them for?And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?For Monetary Damages, wtf, didn't you read the thread title?
Consider me deflected.
I'm not one who kisses the ass of "dear leader" because he is allegedly on "my team."
Somebody fucks up I'll let them know. ANYBODY.
Abandoning ones principles just to anger others you hate is basically what’s wrong with the Republican Party.They are so fucking pissed and I love it.
Just curious. Do you have the specific passage in the law that says "you have to be a politician running for office". If so, please post it.No, you have to be a politician running for office. As far as I can tell, Trump is the only politician I'm Florida who's been banned from Twitter and Facebook. Meaning DeSantis passed a law for the benefit of just one Floridian in a state with a population exceeding 22 million. I hope this stunt, which will never raise a penny in fines, bites him next year.
Again, a private company is not subject to the first amendment freedom of speech. Second, section 230 has zero to do with this law.Exactly. They know what Facebook,Twitter and YouTube do is against 230 protections and they dont care because it benefits their ideology. They couldn’t care less about free speech or the “ constitution”. They only care that these companies are going to face consequences for free speech violations against conservatives.At this point, these fools are just hammering away at the keys because they are so fucking pissed off that their free speech work-around is getting fucked over and Facebook is gonna have to start being legit or get sued. They are so fucking pissed and I love it. I hope they all shit they're fucking pants.Wouldn’t be that hard...just save the posts.Good luck proving intent.Doxing is punishing you personal information online with the intent to get fellow users to stalk and harass another user. So...yes it is.Doxxing and stalking are not the same thing. I don’t think Facebook can sue Facebook for breaking Facebook’s terms of service.Stalking is a crime. Facebooks user rules say you may not perpetrate illegal acts on their platform. Therefore since they allow it. They are breaking a users terms of service. And can be sued.If you say so. Still would be unconstitutional to sue because of it.It’s against their site rules... but they allow it for “ certain” political groups.Nope. Doxxing is constitutionally protected speech.It does when Facebook allows groups that engage in this to do it on their platform and knowingly allows them to go after small business owners with the intent to hurt their businesses.Doxxing isn’t very nice, but it hardly incurs legal liability.Facebook allowing users on their platform to Dox other users for one thing.Monetary damages caused by what? You guys don’t even know.What do you think you’re suing them for?And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?For Monetary Damages, wtf, didn't you read the thread title?
You mean I'm right.It’s absolutely amazing how basically every time you post it’s wrong. I mean, you’re like a broken clock that still manages to be wrong all day.No they aren't.
hahaa it’s not a bill or attainer because it’s not convicting anyone of a crimeBut those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liabilityyou can sue anybody for anything.I think some folks didn't like it....what's your point? I am not seeing the connection here. Facebook is free to have requirements of their employees as well. Facebook employees can sue Facebook....just like Kap was free to sue the NFL.Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.maybe
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.
but that doesn’t negate the fact that all that takes place on facebook and tweeter as well, and they shouldn’t be above the law and protected from liability
That's the point.. Facebook doesn't want the liability associated with lies, slander and bad medical advice. Trump needs to take that on himself.. He's trying to undermine the election process. Facebook doesn't want to be party to that.
Trump should take on the liability of his lies and conspiracy theories.
No, that's NOT the point, because Facebook doesn't currently face any liabilities associated with the content posted by its users. Basically, you're doing the same dishonest shit they're trying to: demanding that they get to act like publishers, while trying to cloak your bigotry in the mantle of "platform".
You have no business accusing anyone else of being a liar, given that you've never said a truthful word in all the time you've been spewing shit on this board. Oh, and the word "lie" is not defined as "saying things I don't like". Good to know that your knowledge of the English language is as extensive as your knowledge of the law.
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
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
what we however is talking about something different all together. We are talking about consumers being able to sue Facebook. Just like consumers are free to sue the New Yorker, or NY Times....why do you continue to think that Facebook should be immune, be treated differently and get better protections?
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Govt can make laws creating a cause of action
this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.
Article 1, Section 9.
Dims have no principles. The never have had any.Abandoning ones principles just to anger others you hate is basically what’s wrong with the Republican Party.They are so fucking pissed and I love it.
You can’t govern by owning the libs.
Of course it is a restriction of freedom of speech. It is outright stopping speech.That’s not a restriction of the freedom of speech. Speech which occurs on someone else’s property is not free.
