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

[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?

The definition of common carrier, for one.

Then post it, asshole.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Because they aren't arbitrarily removing people. They're removing content they see as making Facebook a shittier place.

You know what Facebook doesn't want to be? A place where fringe elements build up their conspiracy theories that lead to violence like on Jan 6th. They don't want to be a place where people shit post for lolz.

You want to know why Florida's bill is garbage? Because you can't craft a comprehensive rule book about what is and isn't allowed, especially given how often you assholes find new and ingenious ways to be assholes. Did you assholes really think that you could continue using other people's hard work to further your mission to tear other people down and get the country at each other's throats? Did you think you could do that and not get your asses chucked off because people don't want to contribute to your cause of making our country a dumpster fire?

Or did you have to bitch and moan to the point that you got your big daddy government to come in and start using force to get your way?

You idiots are what's wrong with this country.

 

[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.

Then post it, asshole.

47 U.S. Code § 153 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

(11)Common carrier

The term “common carrier” or “carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this chapter; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.

 

[colfax_m]

yes ATT is and Facebook is too and should be regulated as such

I don't know why people keep thinking Facebook is a common carrier. Honestly, it's just mind boggling.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

 

[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?

The definition of common carrier, for one.

Then post it, asshole.

47 U.S. Code § 153 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

(11)Common carrier

The term “common carrier” or “carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this chapter; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.

Where does it say a "platform" is not a common carrier?

 

[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.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The fucking moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

 

[dblack]

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.

Neither would I. But the question isn't whether you'd support them. The question is whether you'd support state regulation like the crap Desantis signed. If things were reversed, I'm quite sure that most of the participants in this discussion would flip.

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

Actually, I said nothing like that. Facebook is a tool for selling internet users to advertisers.

Giving individuals recourse via the Courts forces ...

Individuals already have "recourse via the Courts", and that's not what this law establishes. This law dictates new requirements forcing social media sites to function as propaganda vehicles for politicians. It also requires that their moderation practices meet with government approval.

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

I am. I just don't want government in charge of deciding what is "honest discourse" and what isn't.

 

[bripat9643]

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

The definition of common carrier, for one.

Clarence Thomas for another.

Wrong.

 

[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.

Then post it, asshole.

47 U.S. Code § 153 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

(11)Common carrier

The term “common carrier” or “carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this chapter; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.

Where does it say a "platform" is not a common carrier?

Irrelevant as that definition doesn't apply to Facebook.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The fucking moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How fucking brain damaged are you?

 

[colfax_m]

Anyone who doesn't think that Facebook does enough to spell out their standards, just look at their website going over it.

It's extensive.

Facebook Community Standards | Transparency Center

The Facebook Community Standards outline what is and isn't allowed on Facebook.

www.facebook.com

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who doesn't think that Facebook does enough to spell out their standards, just look at their website going over it.

It's extensive.

Facebook Community Standards | Transparency Center

The Facebook Community Standards outline what is and isn't allowed on Facebook.

www.facebook.com

They don't follow their own standards, moron.

 

[colfax_m]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“Trade or commerce” means the advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing, whether by sale, rental, or otherwise, of any good or service, or any property,

You asked what trade laws were for. I replied.

Looks like your own definition proves me right.

...or otherwise....good or services...

You will lose that argument any day of the week.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because they aren't arbitrarily removing people.

THEN WHY ARE YOU BITCHING??? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!!

 

[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.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The fucking moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How fucking brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

 

[colfax_m]

...or otherwise....good or services...

You will lose that argument any day of the week

People have tried suing on the basis of the TOS, they’ve lost. This argument your making fails as the product being delivered isn’t what is deceptive.

Trade laws are to protect people from deception, getting something they didn’t want or something that wasn’t as advertised. That’s not the case here. People aren’t complaining that Facebook is giving them something different. They’re complaining that they no longer have access to it.

Imagine being able to claim damages because you don’t have access to something. It creates a right to a product and that right simply doesn’t exist.

 

[colfax_m]

Because they aren't arbitrarily removing people.

THEN WHY ARE YOU BITCHING??? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!!

Because this law creates unconstitutional requirements on speech.

 

[dblack]

Just as a side-note, it's kind of funny that this law has a special exemption for any company “that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex” of a certain size.

Because, you know, free speech. Or something.