Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fair enough.Some people only know each other on facebook. Catch a ban for some undisclosed reason and that communication llink is GONE. Yeah, it is a monopoly for many purposes.
Given the type of business it is in the contractual relationship with users, you should have some sort of recourse. Like being able to sue these motherfuckers to at least give them the information so they can go find these other people a different way.
It's not a monopoly, not even close. Monopolies can never really exist without laws propping them up (and sorry, 230 doesn't do that). And even if it was a kinda-sorta-almost monopoly, that's still no excuse to give government an actual monopoly over social media moderation. And please let's not go through the tiresome exercise of you denying that, and trying to claim that it's "merely" regulation, or tort, or whatever other bullshit excuses are floating around. This about establishing government authority over what moderation is "allowed", and what isn't, on social media. That's power politicians have lusted after since the internet began, and you're advocating giving it to them. I think that's a really bad idea.
lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriersLOLwhy did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...Of course they areLOLOLOLOLyou think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-IWrong.For the same reason AT&T can not.Why not? It’s their website.They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.
(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.
So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/business_building_153697270-5bfc2b9846e0fb0083c07d69.jpg)
What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples
A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.www.investopedia.com
A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.
A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee.
... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.
Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."
Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one
You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.
hahaha how many people in Florida and how many Florida business do you think are on facebook in florida?The definition of doing business requires they have at least "minimum contacts" in the state. Which may require a sizeable number of commercial sales within the state.a state has jurisdiction over any business that does business in their state.
this law doesn’t infringe on their first amendment rights...they are free to make any statement they want
with that said, if the argument is that they are making statements by blocking post they disagree with, then they certainly will lose their 230 immunity
why do you just lie? all a business has to do, to have the minimal contacts is purposeful avail itself to do business in a stateYes they are conducting business in Florida. I'm in Florida, and I can go to Twitter right this minute. What computers they have in Florida, doesn't matter. What matters is our computers with them, in our computers.
If you were paying twitter in order to view their tweets, they would be doing business in Florida. But if their site is merely "viewable" in another state, doesn't mean they're doing business there.
I can view russian websites, but unless they sell me a russian bride, they're not doing business in the USA.
What if a user is censored despite not having broken the TOS?If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.
Don’t be so naive.Trump has NOTHING to do with this
That’s not true. It’s in their community standards.NOTHING in the TOS forbade such conduct and it happened anyway
why do you just lie? all a business has to do, to have the minimal contacts is purposeful avail itself to do business in a state
tweeter, facebook, google etc all do that.
they all avail themselves...and in fact do business in florida with florida residences
That's the Pandora's box we're talking about here. What if New York and Vermont regulated that FB or Twitter cannot allow conservative posts on their service without getting fined? How about if 30 states each created their own regulations? What if California regulated nobody on FB is allowed to post stuff like this and the dozens of memes like it?If more states follow suit, it is a viable option for them.
Yes, states and even foreign nations have jurisdictions over internet based companies.why do you just lie? all a business has to do, to have the minimal contacts is purposeful avail itself to do business in a state
tweeter, facebook, google etc all do that.
they all avail themselves...and in fact do business in florida with florida residences
When you have a business on the internet, you are exposing it to everybody in the country and even the world. People have to turn on their computer, connect to the internet, sign into your site, hit an "agree" button to all the terms and regulation, and you can proceed to use that service.
That's much different than a business that opens up in a state with a brick and mortar or office building where you are physically doing business from that location. I think that even if California made limitations on what Twitter or Facebook could do, they'd have a hard time trying to control how they operate their business from a legal standpoint.
Really the only thing Trump has to do with this, is the treatment of him by Facebook, Tweeter etc highlighted the problem on a big stage.Don’t be so naive.Trump has NOTHING to do with this
It’s specifically the reason that the first sections of the bill deal with politicians.Really the only thing Trump has to do with this, is the treatment of him by Facebook, Tweeter etc highlighted the problem on a big stage.Don’t be so naive.Trump has NOTHING to do with this
So if you are on a Forum and live in Florida but it is run in New Jersey that would negate the law?Good luck imposing laws on companies in other states.
Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”www.foxbusiness.com
Smile
Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriersLOLwhy did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...Of course they areLOLOLOLOLyou think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-IWrong.For the same reason AT&T can not.Why not? It’s their website.They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.
(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.
So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?
What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples
A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.
A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.
A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee.
... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.
Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."
Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one
You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.
There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.It’s specifically the reason that the first sections of the bill deal with politicians.Really the only thing Trump has to do with this, is the treatment of him by Facebook, Tweeter etc highlighted the problem on a big stage.Don’t be so naive.Trump has NOTHING to do with this
Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriersLOLwhy did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...Of course they areLOLOLOLOLyou think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-IWrong.For the same reason AT&T can not.Why not? It’s their website.They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.
(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.
So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?
What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples
A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.
A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.
A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee.
... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.
Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."
Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one
You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.
So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.
Yes, states and even foreign nations have jurisdictions over internet based companies.
Agreed, it's very different then a mom and pop shop that's local. But then again, a mom- and pop shop that is on line, and avails itself to sell products and services across the State line could be sued in another state.
It's just that the mere thought of killing open discourse rubs me the wrong way. I can't reconcile the conflict. They are unethical kuuuunts and everybody knows it. I want to chop their motherfucking heads off.
www.coindesk.com
States can't dictate laws in other states. A person who breaks the law can only be charged by the state where the law was violated.So if you are on a Forum and live in Florida but it is run in New Jersey that would negate the law?Good luck imposing laws on companies in other states.Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”
Smile
The test if a business has min contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over a business, comes out of International Shoe Co. v Washington:Yes, states and even foreign nations have jurisdictions over internet based companies.
Agreed, it's very different then a mom and pop shop that's local. But then again, a mom- and pop shop that is on line, and avails itself to sell products and services across the State line could be sued in another state.
No they cannot. They may have tax issues. I know that happened here in Ohio. They regulated that internet companies must charge our citizens the normal state tax as any other business. If they didn't, we would take them to court for taxes owed to the state. But that's much different than trying to regulate a companies TOS. Nobody can sue a company or create a law to do that. And again, if they can do that, then why can't 30 other states each with their own regulations?
