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

[bripat9643]

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

The same place that says a tomato is not a suspension bridge.

We're already convinced that you're a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

You posted section 202. Not 230. You realize that different sections of law apply to different organizations.

Actually section 202 links to the definition of "common carrier" he's attempting to say applies to facebook.

But the definition linked to, says that common carrier are those "for hire".

He actually provided proof that facebook isn't a common carrier because they give away their access for free.

Advertisers do hire Facebook, moron.

This argument has already been shot down.

One thing is clear: you don't give a damn about the facts. You're looking for any reason to defeat this law because you want Facebook to censor conservatives.

 

[meaner gene]

We're already convinced that you're a dumbass.

You realize 47 USC § 153(11) defines common carrier for use in the 200 section as being those "for hire".

Unless you can prove that facebook is "for hire" your own post proves they are NOT a common carrier.

 

[bripat9643]

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

And if you click on your lick defining "common carrier"

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.

Before you read all of that, start with the part where is says they are engaged as "a common carrier for hire"

Otherwise section 230 does not apply.

Been there. Done that.

 

[dblack]

It's a shame Zuckerberg doesn't have the balls to just suspend all Fla based accounts.

 

[meaner gene]

Advertisers do hire Facebook, moron.

Facebook gives free $50 add credit. Which means if people like your ads you don't pay for them.

Only bad ads require payment.

 

[dblack]

Rest easy Trumpsters, the Dems are right there with ya:

Warren and Progressives Mount Major Push to Break Up Facebook and Amazon

While conservatives complain about “censorship,” progressive coalitions are moving to break up big tech.

truthout.org

 

[WinterBorn]

Right? Who da fuk needs a voice anyway (except you and big tech) ?!?!?!

Social media platforms are private property. You play by their rules or you don’t play at all.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Yeah...it'd be nice if that's all they wanted.

Meh...it's not. They want all opposition silenced. Why do you think they kicked Parler off the servers?
Why do you think they are trying to indict Trump?

Why is Fascism so hard for you to understand?

In this thread you praise the gov't for interfering in private business. And in another, that you started, you complain that the gov't is destroying the free market.

You need to pick one.

Is there any doubt that nearly everyone in the thread would flip if the situation were reversed?

I like to think I wouldn't.

 

[skews13]

I understand the motive but this new Florida law is unconstitutional and will probably be struck down very quickly.

Whether it is or it isn't, I want to see them try to enforce it.

 

[colfax_m]

You posted section 202. Not 230. You realize that different sections of law apply to different organizations.

Actually section 202 links to the definition of "common carrier" he's attempting to say applies to facebook.

But the definition linked to, says that common carrier are those "for hire".

He actually provided proof that facebook isn't a common carrier because they give away their access for free.

Advertisers do hire Facebook, moron.

This argument has already been shot down.

One thing is clear: you don't give a damn about the facts. You're looking for any reason to defeat this law because you want Facebook to censor conservatives.

Still looking for where section 230 has anything to do with common carriers.

 

[meaner gene]

It's a shame Zuckerberg doesn't have the balls to just suspend all Fla based accounts.

I have a better idea. Because of the Florida law, place a requirement on people living in Florida.

All Florida residents, and persons that the "big tech" law applies to, must send them a copy of a government issued photo ID that meets voter ID requirements to prove residency.

Failure to do so, is a violation of TOS.

 

[struth]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Only if you define ideology as a belief in false statements.

That "flat earth" content can't be infringed upon.

huh?

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.

I think they should be labeled and regulated as such...I am not sure why the argument is so mind boggling....read the SCOTUS opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
Some quotes:
"Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,"

"Similar to utilities, today’s dominant digital platforms derive much of their value from network size," ......"The Internet, of course, is a network. But these digital platforms are networks within that network. The Facebook suite of apps is valuable largely because 3 billion people use it. Google search—at 90% of the market share—is valuable relative to other search engines because more people use it, creating data that Google’s algorithm uses to refine and improve search results. These network effects entrench these companies. Ordinarily, the astronomical profit margins of these platforms—last year, Google brought in $182.5 billion total, $40.3 billion in net income—would induce new entrants into the market. That these companies have no comparable competitors highlights that the industries may have substantial barriers to entry."

They also get into some discussion on Anti-Trust issues...which puts them in the same camp as Dem Senator Klobuchar.

Will be interesting..the Court granted the appeal...so we shall see

 

[Kondor3]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

And this means exactly WHAT again?

Hell... are some of those Big Tech Companies even under Florida State jurisdiction?

Despite what dribbles off the fevered cheap-dyed brow of foolhardy Rumplicans, do such folk have 'standing'?

What if the Companies ignore such summons? How would Florida courts enforce any resulting Summary Judgement(s)?

Hell... this is something to be dealt with at the Federal level by the FCC or some-such... not by pi$$ant Orange Ring-Kissing gubernatorial baboons.

You don't need a crystal ball to see that any Federal appeals court worth its salt will laugh this one out of court in a heartbeat.

State courts cannot interfere with interstate commerce... check the Constitution...

 

[Hum Dinger]

Right? Who da fuk needs a voice anyway (except you and big tech) ?!?!?!

Social media platforms are private property. You play by their rules or you don’t play at all.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Yeah...it'd be nice if that's all they wanted.

Meh...it's not. They want all opposition silenced. Why do you think they kicked Parler off the servers?
Why do you think they are trying to indict Trump?

Why is Fascism so hard for you to understand?

In this thread you praise the gov't for interfering in private business. And in another, that you started, you complain that the gov't is destroying the free market.

You need to pick one.

Is there any doubt that nearly everyone in the thread would flip if the situation were reversed?

Sure...if liberals were nutcases that posted blatantly false, hateful and otherwise inflammatory messages...but in general we don't.

I'm sure that there are some rare cases of leftist extremist posted unacceptable stuff... but when their posts are removed and their accounts shutdown, they do not receive massive support from other liberals.

Peace & Love baby, Peace & Love!!!!

 

[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.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

LOL

By definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not. So what did we lose?

Then Facebook can be sued, moron.

And yet, they can't be. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

 

[Faun]

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.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

If it doesn't apply to them, they why did Facebook cite it to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

As your links show, they didn't.

 

[Faun]

You posted section 202. Not 230. You realize that different sections of law apply to different organizations.

Actually section 202 links to the definition of "common carrier" he's attempting to say applies to facebook.

But the definition linked to, says that common carrier are those "for hire".

He actually provided proof that facebook isn't a common carrier because they give away their access for free.

Advertisers do hire Facebook, moron.

This argument has already been shot down.

One thing is clear: you don't give a damn about the facts. You're looking for any reason to defeat this law because you want Facebook to censor conservatives.

Trump wasn't an advertiser, fucking moron.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's a shame Zuckerberg doesn't have the balls to just suspend all Fla based accounts.

I agree. He doesn't because he will be cutting off his own dick.

Nobody is making Zucky continue servicing Florida. I would LOVE for him to show some balls.

 

[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?

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

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

LOL

By definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not. So what did we lose?

Then Facebook can be sued, moron.

And yet, they can't be. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

You can't have it both ways, moron. On the one hand you claim Facebook can be sued. On the other hand, you claime Facebook is a publisher that can edit its content any way it wants to.

 

[bripat9643]

You posted section 202. Not 230. You realize that different sections of law apply to different organizations.

Actually section 202 links to the definition of "common carrier" he's attempting to say applies to facebook.

But the definition linked to, says that common carrier are those "for hire".

He actually provided proof that facebook isn't a common carrier because they give away their access for free.

Advertisers do hire Facebook, moron.

This argument has already been shot down.

One thing is clear: you don't give a damn about the facts. You're looking for any reason to defeat this law because you want Facebook to censor conservatives.

Trump wasn't an advertiser, fucking moron.

Irrelevant, fucking moron