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

[Faun]

I think they should be labeled and regulated as such...I am not sure why the argument is so mind boggling

It’s incredibly mind boggling.

A common carrier moves items or information from one person to another for a fee.

A phone service is a common carrier. Moves phone calls from one person to another. An electric company is a common carrier. Moves electricity from the producer to the user.

Social media is nothing of the sort. It accepts information, formats it, stores it, publishes it, and then broadcasts it over the internet to anyone that accesses it.

They’re not passive. They’re not just “carrying” information. They’re storing and publishing it for the public. There is no way one could view them as a common carrier by the definition of the word.

You just described a common carrier, moron. Phone companies do all the things you listed.

That's because phone companies are common carriers.

 

[Faun]

I doesn't even matter.

Hey, we finally agree on something.

 

[colfax_m]

Phone companies do all the things you listed

Phone companies don’t store my phone calls and broadcast them to the public.

Dumb ass.

They sure do store your phone calls. It's called voice mail. And phone companies don't broadcast your phone calls.

Dumbass.

Phone companies are common carriers. Social media is not.

 

[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.

It shows they did, you lying piece of shit.

Nope. There's no mention of common carriers in those links.

It’ll be, what, 30 more pages of this poster pretending it’s there?

FUAX lost the debate 60 pages ago, nimrod.

LOLOL

Yet again, the USMB fucking moron demonstrates why he's the USNB fucking moron.

Fucking moron, I wasn't even posting on this thread 60 pages ago. Looks like you're hallucinating again.

 

[colfax_m]

Either way, I would love to hear your legal theories as to why Facebook will prevail on the user-end disclosure obligations under the Florida DTPA

Disclosure of what exactly? Facebook has expressive documentation of their community standards.

What will be struck down is any civil liability for lack of access to their product and the 30 day waiting period for content takedowns.

 

[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?

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.

Why are you blaming me for your ignorance?

By the definition, Facebook is not a common carrier.

Facebook is protected by rule 230.

2 immutable facts a fucking moron like you struggles to comprehend.

Those two statements contradict each other, moron. Do you believe CNN can't be sued? WAPO?

Except they don't. The definition rules them out of the category of being a common carrier.

And they've prevailed in court under rule 230.

You're wrong with every post you make.

Yes, they do contradict each other. You would know that if you were capable of committing logic.

Now answer this question: Do you believe CNN can't be sued? WAPO?

Of course they can, and have been, sued. What a stupid question.

 

[meaner gene]

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

State courts cannot interfere with interstate commerce... check the Constitution... [/SIZE]

Florida could try to enforce the judgments through Florida based ISP's. They could require they block all access to facebook, thus removing florida as a revenue source to Zuckerberg.

But that would also mean Florida banning it's citizens from facebook.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Either way, I would love to hear your legal theories as to why Facebook will prevail on the user-end disclosure obligations under the Florida DTPA

Disclosure of what exactly? Facebook has expressive documentation of their community standards.

What will be struck down is any civil liability for lack of access to their product and the 30 day waiting period for content takedowns.

I agree. That will likely go.

 

[Faun]

Either way, I would love to hear your legal theories as to why Facebook will prevail on the user-end disclosure obligations under the Florida DTPA

Disclosure of what exactly? Facebook has expressive documentation of their community standards.

What will be struck down is any civil liability for lack of access to their product and the 30 day waiting period for content takedowns.

Not to mention their exemption for theme parks which provide a major source of revenue for the state, whereas Facebook and Twitter generate very little for Florida. That could be a poison pill in the law for violating equal protection.

 

[dblack]

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.

Excellent. One for "flip". Anybody else wanna confess?

 

[meaner gene]

And phone companies don't broadcast your phone calls.

Dumbass.

You're the dumbass. When phone companies went from landlines to cellsites, they started "broadcasting" phone calls, and they needed an FCC license to do so.

 

[colfax_m]

Either way, I would love to hear your legal theories as to why Facebook will prevail on the user-end disclosure obligations under the Florida DTPA

Disclosure of what exactly? Facebook has expressive documentation of their community standards.

What will be struck down is any civil liability for lack of access to their product and the 30 day waiting period for content takedowns.

I agree. That will likely go.

And so will the requirements to keep politicians and news organizations online.

And that’ll basically hollow out the law to the point of uselessness.

 

[bripat9643]

I think they should be labeled and regulated as such...I am not sure why the argument is so mind boggling

It’s incredibly mind boggling.

A common carrier moves items or information from one person to another for a fee.

A phone service is a common carrier. Moves phone calls from one person to another. An electric company is a common carrier. Moves electricity from the producer to the user.

Social media is nothing of the sort. It accepts information, formats it, stores it, publishes it, and then broadcasts it over the internet to anyone that accesses it.

They’re not passive. They’re not just “carrying” information. They’re storing and publishing it for the public. There is no way one could view them as a common carrier by the definition of the word.

You just described a common carrier, moron. Phone companies do all the things you listed.

That's because phone companies are common carriers.

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

 

[bripat9643]

And phone companies don't broadcast your phone calls.

Dumbass.

You're the dumbass. When phone companies went from landlines to cellsites, they started "broadcasting" phone calls, and they needed an FCC license to do so.

Irrelevant. I have a wireless modem the broadcasts the internet.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. I can also get internet on my phone via wireless.

 

[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.

Why are you blaming me for your ignorance?

By the definition, Facebook is not a common carrier.

Facebook is protected by rule 230.

2 immutable facts a fucking moron like you struggles to comprehend.

Those two statements contradict each other, moron. Do you believe CNN can't be sued? WAPO?

Except they don't. The definition rules them out of the category of being a common carrier.

And they've prevailed in court under rule 230.

You're wrong with every post you make.

Yes, they do contradict each other. You would know that if you were capable of committing logic.

Now answer this question: Do you believe CNN can't be sued? WAPO?

Of course they can, and have been, sued. What a stupid question.

Then so can Facebook, numskull.

 

[colfax_m]

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

Jesus, how are you this dense.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

Jesus, how are you this dense.

It's not me that's dense, idiot.

 

[dblack]

Let's cut the bullshit. No one expects this law to stand. It's just DeSantis giving Trump a handjob.

 

[meaner gene]

And so will the requirements to keep politicians and news organizations online.

And that’ll basically hollow out the law to the point of uselessness.

I can't see that surviving, because it doesn't have an exception for illegal content. A politician could post anything from dangerous medical advice to child pornography, and the carrier couldn't stop it for 30 days.

 

[colfax_m]

It's not me that's dense, idiot.

You seem ignorant of the fact that we’ve been saying OVER AND OVER that Facebook isn’t a common carrier.