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

[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

Your 'Thinkers and Doers' are trying to destroy private property rights.

Apparently, your 'Thinkers and Doers' don't have the intelligence or fortitude to start their own social media sites. They can only use other people's social media sites, like the bunch of mindless parasites that they are.

Outright hilarious rant.
If you dont like Facebook then go start your Facebook
6 year old response at best

 

[Faun]

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?

LOLOL

Kazzing won't erase your idiotic post. You said that here...

MSN

www.msn.com

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

​

You're a special kind of stupid to think an app has to be on a phone in order for a social media site to operate. Even dumber, you must think the Google playstore is the only way to get an app on a phone.

 

[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.​

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.

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

 

[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.

You apparently know nothing about how social media sites make their money.

They make their money by first soliciting participants so they can then tell advertisers that they have a population to advertise to.
It is you child who does not know the horse comes first and then the cart

 

[meaner gene]

Then why did you bring up the Clayton act of 1914?

Are you really this big of a dumbass?

It referenced the vertical integration that the Sherman act prohibited.

The sherman act prohibited vertical integration, and Clayton prevented creating one by merger.

It's all about vertical integration, not size.

You were wrong again.

 

[meaner gene]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

Answers what, your unyielding idiocy?

 

[forkup]

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

Choosing to not associate yourself with a platform you don't agree with is not running or hiding. It is making a choice as to whether you want to participate in that platform. Correcting an error, however, implies you have the right to judge whether or not it is an error. (a hard thing to do when you are neither a judge nor have ownership rights of the platform)

It’s an error when they solicit everyone is welcome and later on impose “except you”

First of not everybody was welcome. Hence the terms of service notice when you joined. Second, since they didn't relinquish ownership, the right to change the terms of service was theirs. The applicable errors you might conceivably state are the selective application of those terms of service, or terms of service that would be a civil rights violation or other violation of the law. Neither as far as I know, have occurred.

It is interesting that a party that has a self-proclaimed aversion to regulation and equates any intervention in business as Communism has no problem taking what amount to ownership rights away from private businesses in this case.

 

[Faun]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

 

[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?

LOLOL

Kazzing won't erase your idiotic post. You said that here...

​

MSN

www.msn.com

​

​

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

​

You're a special kind of stupid to think an app has to be on a phone in order for a social media site to operate. Even dumber, you must think the Google playstore is the only way to get an app on a phone.

Denying the obvious is what fascists and racists do. I'm not interested in bickering with your bull shit. It's clear what they did and the effect of that, sugar boy

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is interesting that a party that has a self-proclaimed aversion to regulation and equates any intervention in business as Communism has no problem taking what amount to ownership rights away from private businesses in this case.

Not everybody in their party. I'm against it because I don't like government getting over involved in business to start with no matter who it favors.

 

[bripat9643]

Then why did you bring up the Clayton act of 1914?

Are you really this big of a dumbass?

It referenced the vertical integration that the Sherman act prohibited.

The sherman act prohibited vertical integration, and Clayton prevented creating one by merger.

It's all about vertical integration, not size.

You were wrong again.

It doesn't even mention vertical integration, dumbass.

 

[meaner gene]

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

That explains why he couldn't quote from the article. All he did was make a claim, and then failing to prove it.

 

[Faun]

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?

LOLOL

Kazzing won't erase your idiotic post. You said that here...

​

MSN

www.msn.com

​

​

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

​

You're a special kind of stupid to think an app has to be on a phone in order for a social media site to operate. Even dumber, you must think the Google playstore is the only way to get an app on a phone.

Denying the obvious is what fascists and racists do. I'm not interested in bickering with your bull shit. It's clear what they did and the effect of that, sugar boy

LOLOL

Spits the flaming imbecile who thinks it's Parlor. It's not, it's Parler; thinks Google shut them down. Google didn't shut them down, Amazon did. Thinks Parler couldn't operate when Google removed Parler's app from their playstore. Parler was still operating until Amazon shut them down.

You basically got every single aspect of this wrong. You should be more respectful to your betters who are trying to educate you.

 

[bripat9643]

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

That explains why he couldn't quote from the article. All he did was make a claim, and then failing to prove it.

Who claims a "platform" isn't a common carrier?

 

[meaner gene]

It doesn't even mention vertical integration, dumbass.

Vertical integration through a merger is subject to the provisions laid out in the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which governs transactions that fall under the umbrella of antitrust law. The Act provides substance and clarification to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

It doesn't mention vertical integration.? (read intense sarcasm here)
You have the reading skills of a moron.

 

[surada]

Wonder if Desantis was at the Republican governors convention??

MyPillow’s Mike Lindell is turned away from Republican governors event

The CEO, a top Trump ally, has been sued for defamation over his false assertion that a company’s voting machines stole the election for Joe Biden.

www.politico.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The same can be said about you, based on your replies in this very thread. You a butthurt because now Facebook has some accountability.

That's not what I'm butthurt about. Facebook is a blight. I don't use their website and I encourage others to do likewise. I'll be happy to see them go out of business.

What I am "butthurt" about is the radical expansion of state power over social media. There's basically no opposition to this power grab. And, despite the screeching accusations of certain morons on this board, I see Democrats as the bigger threat. They've never met a regulation they didn't like, and they'd love to establish government "oversight" regarding social media moderation. Political melodrama notwithstanding, they're on your side. In fact, I'll go on record with a long range prediction. IF this law stands in Florida, Democrats will introduce similar legislation at the Federal level before the end of the decade. Probably sooner.

You hate this not out of principle, but because you LOVED the legal means of silencing any opposing views.

Facebook can't silence opposing views. All they can do is delete them from their website. I'm surprised you can't understand the difference.

You're pissed because this law will force Facebook to stop lying to its users about its moderation policies and the real goals.

Nope. I'm pissed because this law will put every social website (like this one) under the government's thumb.

Facebook gave the communist left and anti-Trumptards a beautiful fiefdom of unchallenged propaganda presented as "FACT," and now they have to tell the fucking truth and THAT pisses YOU off. Be honest.

I am being honest.

Now, can you answer this question honestly? If the situation were reversed. If Facebook were run by the pillow guy, and they were removing BLM posts, banning socialist agitators, etc... And the Democrats proposed the same kind of legislation in retaliation - which side would you be on? Would you be on here making excuses for the law and lauding the sanctity of tort liability? Or would you be calling them on a statist power grab?

Just have a look at Facebook's mission statement.

https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?p...ur new,communities and bring people together.
I am certain you will find the same happy, kumbaya lines of complete bullshit from Twitter too.

If the situation were reversed, I can HONESTLY say that I would NEVER support a social media platform falsely purporting to be a place for EVERYONE with a mission statement repeating the phrase "bring people closer together" while arbitrarily killing discourse and REMOVING people. I mean, how many fucking times can Zucky repeat that phrase?

The truth, as you yourself have admitted, it that Facebook is nothing but a propaganda tool for the left and the globalists.

THAT is deception, and it has MONUMENTALLY devastating consequences to everyone.

This legislation is the least intrusive method of ensuring the consumer (and yes, they are legally considered consumers and social media is legally considered trade) is well informed of social media's agenda.

Giving individuals recourse via the Courts forces social media to be honest in their practices so individuals are not deceptively propagandized, which we can assume would be against their will (I don't know of anyone who would willfully allow themselves to be indoctrinated without full disclosure).

The goal of any lover of freedom should be honest discourse or disclosure.

Now, Facebook, for example, when conducting business with Floridians, cannot make up bullshit and arbitrarily repress certain individual or ideas WITHOUT DISCLOSING the objectives or agenda (which is deceptive trade).

So tell me. How is that anti-liberty? You think Facebook has a right to deceive the entire world without recourse? You thing ANYONE should be allow to do so?

Again, Facebook can still do as Facebook chooses. But Facebook cannot be deceptive about it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course it is a restriction of freedom of speech. It is outright stopping speech.

You forget to mention that they're only stopping speech on property that they own and operate.

Dictatorship of the Plutariat

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.

They don't have absolute power over their customers. The customers can choose to leave completely. It is not a necessity, it is entertainment.

 

[Faun]

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

That explains why he couldn't quote from the article. All he did was make a claim, and then failing to prove it.

Who claims a "platform" isn't a common carrier?

The definition of common carrier, for one.