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

[meaner gene]

Rule 230 only covers common carriers, you fucking moron.

Pretending to be a dumbass doesn't make a convincing argument.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances.

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected",

 

[Hum Dinger]

Giving even a private entity absolute power over its customers is the same as Communist dictatorship, excused by the same slippery reasoning that the Communists used.

Not really because people who were in Communist countries had no choice because they couldn't freely leave. You can leave any social media you wish at any time.

Leaving or not participating stops short. This method of censorship needs to be stopped. Two way street and level playing field to be an equal opportunity for All. Equality is Not a one way street .

If you don't like their rules, you are free to start your own social media site....

Wait!

That's what Trump did.

How's that going?

 

[Faun]

They're not a common carrier, fucking moron. Your own link proves you're an idiot.

And thanks for failing to name the crime you claim exists by banning posters. Which moderator here wasocked up for banning posters?

They claim they are, dumbfuck.

They can "claim" anything. Like Dick Cheney claimed he was a member of the legislative branch. The claim has never been upheld. The closest I found was a dissenting opinion by Clarence Thomas.

Their claim has never been contested in court, dumb fuck. The've used to have lawsuits dismissed.

Their claim, as exemplified in YOUR link, was that they were protected by rule 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects them from exposure to lawsuits because they're an online platform. That has nothing to do with common carriers.

They said so themselves...

In dismissing the case on 18 May, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis upheld Facebook’s argument that the company was protected by the Communications Decency Act, which says certain Internet services are not liable for content created by a third party.​

 

[WEATHER53]

The constitution had no social media to consider nor could it be forseen
You libs are defending to allow kerosene regulations on electric current

 

[meaner gene]

That is exactly the rational they used to break up standard oil: market size.

Stamdard Oil was a vertical monopoly. It was broken up into smaller vertical monopolies because it could not exist as just one portion of a vertical market.

 

[bripat9643]

Rule 230 only covers common carriers, you fucking moron.

Pretending to be a dumbass doesn't make a convincing argument.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances.

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected",

What's your point, dumbfuck?

 

[kaz]

It's not different. Kmart is open to the public (aka common carrier) and can't discriminate as such.

If you can force Google to carry Parlor, you can force K-mart to carry Twinkies.

No, Kmart is not a common carrier. Being open to the public isn't how the term "common carrier" is defined.

Exactly. Just as google isn't a common carrier either.

Thanks for the assist.
[/QUOTE]




"
First, we took a look at Google, Apple and a landmark lawsuit from the Department of Justice.

Then, we answered your questions about Section 230, the law that protects social media companies from being sued over posts by their users."

 

[d0gbreath]

Everyday Floridian: Hi, yes, I would like to file a suit against facebook for $500,000 in damages for illegally censoring my posted material and suspending my account.

Florida lawyer: I'll need an $8,000 retainer, and we can get started right away on your suit.

Everyday Floridian: I thought that you would deduct your fees from the winnings?

Florida lawyer: I'll need an $8,000 retainer, and we can get started right away on your suit.

 

[kaz]

And ... Parlor ... Who was shut down by Google, not even their competitor. It's a clear anti-trust violation.

But you're here because you support free markets!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure, that's what you care about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOLOL

Parler was not shut down by Google. Who knows why you keep repeating that kaz?

MSN

www.msn.com

LOLOL

Retard, that only meant people could no longer reach Parler's site with their app. That didn't shut Parler down. Parler's website remained up and running. It was Amazon, not Google, who shut Parler down. For a brief period anyway, until Parler signed up with a new web host.

You're a flaming imbecile who's simply incapable of learning.

You always post like you're Rumpelstiltskin and someone just said your name. It's pretty funny. It's hard not to poke you just to make you react again. LOL

LOL

You think I shouldn't laugh at you when you post funny shit like that to me?

I think you should stop inhaling sugar bombs

 

[meaner gene]

carrier, proves that they are NOT currently a common carrier.

They claimed they were a common carrier in court, dumbass.

And Clarence Thomas in a statement against interest said they were NOT.

Case closed.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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

Grasping at straws much?

There is no inalienable or Constitutional right for anyone to have a Facebook account. It's a private company and can set it's own rules for user accounts. If you don't like those rules, then close your account.

Facebook can change those rules as it sees fit. Facebook doesn't allow hateful, false or inflammatory content - and it has the right to determine which posts fit those descriptions. They have a team of independent qualified experts to review the standards. There's nothing 'deceptive or undisclosed' about it.

Vague nebulous and non specific
It is unpermitted by numerous communications statues . You have got to stop offering the silly notion that private business can do what they want. See their business is communication; they rely and seek public participation to exist. Very similar to the telephone they may be able to prohibit calls about blowing up a bridge but they can’t kick off a President and his supporters for being supporters and supported. If they made it a precondition before you hit the I Agree that favorable or supportive comments about Trump are not allowed then it could be a different matter. They don’t do that. They invite you in wide arms wide open and then throttle you later on. That’s what this will correct.

Facebook and Twitter are NOT in the communications business. They are in the business of selling advertising.

They give people accounts for free. They have NO OBLIGATIONS to the people that use their sites.

If people paid for their accounts, then certain changes to the conditions may not be legal, but since people get FREE accounts, these companies owe them NOTHING.

 

[bripat9643]

That is exactly the rational they used to break up standard oil: market size.

Stamdard Oil was a vertical monopoly. It was broken up into smaller vertical monopolies because it could not exist as just one portion of a vertical market.

You are begging the question. You assume in your post what the court was required to prove, that Standard Oil was a monopoly.

 

[bripat9643]

carrier, proves that they are NOT currently a common carrier.

They claimed they were a common carrier in court, dumbass.

And Clarence Thomas in a statement against interest said they were NOT.

Case closed.

That isn't what he said, moron.

 

[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

You mean like some are only silenced on Twitter or Facebook?

And ... Parlor ... Who was shut down by Google, not even their competitor. It's a clear anti-trust violation.

But you're here because you support free markets!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure, that's what you care about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOLOL

Parler was not shut down by Google. Who knows why you keep repeating that kaz?

MSN

www.msn.com

That didn't shut Parler down, you fucking imbecile.

Right, a social media site just had to operate without being on phones. That's all.

OMG you're stupid. You aren't faking, you believe the propaganda. At least Goebbels knew it was propaganda

Faun is stupid, stupid is Faun ...

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, until Amazon took them down,, Parler was still accessible on phones. Just like USMB is.

You're a fucking retard.

Rumpelstiltskin! Can you freak out again now?

Remember I told you to talk to your mom about monitoring your sugar intake? Never mind, don't, it's too funny

LOL

Hisses the flaming imbecile who thinks apps don't run on phones if they're not in Google's playstore.

Never said that. No one said that but you. You're just OD'ing on sugar. I know you like the sugar high, but is the rebound worth it?

 

[meaner gene]

Rule 230 only covers common carriers, you fucking moron.

What's your point, dumbfuck?

You keep getting 230 completely wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Everyday Floridian: Hi, yes, I would like to file a suit against facebook for $500,000 in damages for illegally censoring my posted material and suspending my account.

Florida lawyer: I'll need an $8,000 retainer, and we can get started right away on your suit.

Everyday Floridian: I thought that you would deduct your fees from the winnings?

Florida lawyer: I'll need an $8,000 retainer, and we can get started right away on your suit.

What's your point, asshole?

 

[bripat9643]

Rule 230 only covers common carriers, you fucking moron.

What's your point, dumbfuck?

You keep getting 230 completely wrong.

Wrong.

 

[WEATHER53]

That right can be restricted when you invite them in to begin with

True, like if you rent an apartment, and you take in a roommate. Once you accept the roommate in, he then has some rights to his existence in that apartment.

Also. You invite the office to your home. You find that one if the couples is interracial and you ask them to leave. You have NO prescribed Right to do that based solely on the fact that it is your private property. And rights you may have had, if any, you waived with the invitation which was without stipulations. Facebook is not stipulating when they seek your participation and then imposed undisclosed stipulations after you join. That is not legal.

So you're saying that companies can not EVER change the terms of their agreements?

You are free to terminate your association with them if you do not like the new terms.

What planet are you from? Obviously, not Earth!

You offer run and hide as the solution which is of course standard Lib 101
Thinkers and doers offer to correct the error

 

[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

Grasping at straws much?

There is no inalienable or Constitutional right for anyone to have a Facebook account. It's a private company and can set it's own rules for user accounts. If you don't like those rules, then close your account.

Facebook can change those rules as it sees fit. Facebook doesn't allow hateful, false or inflammatory content - and it has the right to determine which posts fit those descriptions. They have a team of independent qualified experts to review the standards. There's nothing 'deceptive or undisclosed' about it.

Vague nebulous and non specific
It is unpermitted by numerous communications statues . You have got to stop offering the silly notion that private business can do what they want. See their business is communication; they rely and seek public participation to exist. Very similar to the telephone they may be able to prohibit calls about blowing up a bridge but they can’t kick off a President and his supporters for being supporters and supported. If they made it a precondition before you hit the I Agree that favorable or supportive comments about Trump are not allowed then it could be a different matter. They don’t do that. They invite you in wide arms wide open and then throttle you later on. That’s what this will correct.

Facebook and Twitter are NOT in the communications business. They are in the business of selling advertising.

They give people accounts for free. They have NO OBLIGATIONS to the people that use their sites.

If people paid for their accounts, then certain changes to the conditions may not be legal, but since people get FREE accounts, these companies owe them NOTHING.

“Not in the communication business”. Jesus Christ the stupidity.

 

[bripat9643]

They're not a common carrier, fucking moron. Your own link proves you're an idiot.

And thanks for failing to name the crime you claim exists by banning posters. Which moderator here wasocked up for banning posters?

They claim they are, dumbfuck.

They can "claim" anything. Like Dick Cheney claimed he was a member of the legislative branch. The claim has never been upheld. The closest I found was a dissenting opinion by Clarence Thomas.

Their claim has never been contested in court, dumb fuck. The've used to have lawsuits dismissed.

Their claim, as exemplified in YOUR link, was that they were protected by rule 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects them from exposure to lawsuits because they're an online platform. That has nothing to do with common carriers.

They said so themselves...

In dismissing the case on 18 May, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis upheld Facebook’s argument that the company was protected by the Communications Decency Act, which says certain Internet services are not liable for content created by a third party.​

A "platform," by definition, is a common carrier.

I think I've given you more than enough opportunities to prove what a colossal dumbass you are.