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

[Faun]

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

Good luck imposing laws on companies in other states.

So if you are on a Forum and live in Florida but it is run in New Jersey that would negate the law?

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.

Sure FL can't dictate NJ law, but if a NJ business is doing business in FL it has to flow FL law...and since it's doing business in FL, FL has jurisdiction over the business

Florida has no jurisdiction over a business being run in another state.

Sure...but if they business avails itself to do business in FL it does. Please keep up.

LOL

So if you shop on Amazon and you purchase something which is shipped from another state -- whose state sales tax do you think you're paying?

my home state but i fail to see what that has to do with my comment or the discussion

Nope, you're not charged tax by your home state. Your state can't charge you tax for something you purchase from another state even though you purchase it using Amazon.

And that's what we're discussing. States have no jurisdiction on other states, even when it's internet commerce.

 

[colfax_m]

And only enforced against anyone who does not toe the party line.

You guys seem to be the ones having a hard time following rules.

I’m also looking at the constitution which requires freedom of speech to be exercised in a “fair” manner.

 

[bripat9643]

I love this solution.

Well it will never happen, so enjoy the articles on it.

We'll see about that.

 

[bripat9643]

And only enforced against anyone who does not toe the party line.

You guys seem to be the ones having a hard time following rules.

I’m also looking at the constitution which requires freedom of speech to be exercised in a “fair” manner.

Where does it do that?

 

[bripat9643]

guidlelines they just created because of the story...the story was accurate.

Nope. Doxxing has been against guidelines for a LOOOONG time.

It’s been explicitly posted in their TOS.

Except they allow left wingers to do it.

 

[bripat9643]

There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.

Can you name three?

Trump was one as well...and it was really highlighted in the 2020 election. One example was how they blocked a negative story about the Xiden family corrupt business practices overseas.

The article violated their guidelines on doxxing since the article published the personal email address. It was shoddy journalism.

Trump, Devin Nunez, Matt Gaetz.

That isn't the reason they blocked the story, you lying douchebag.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does it do that?

It’s in the bill that you started a thread on.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, that's just silly....Facebook makes itself available to put ads for companies in FL...moreover, Facebook even has a team that helps businesses that create pages, market themselves. They have teams of Account Managers that go and deal with busuinesses, both large and small. They charge a fee for promoting your businesses, and different add ons etc.

I don't know what your experience is doing business with Facebook, but it still doesn't change the fact that doing business with a Florida company doesn't give the state the right to control their TOS when they are in California. They can regulate what that business in Florida must do to deal with Facebook or Twitter, but they cannot control Facebook or Twitter because of it.

USMB accepts advertisement to keep it open. Do you believe that if some company based in New York city advertises on USMB, New York state can create law that forces USMB to take down my conservative posts?

They can regulate whatever Facebook does in Florida, and that includes making it illegal to censor conservatives. Facebook can choose how to accomplish that directive.

 

[colfax_m]

There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.

Can you name three?

Trump was one as well...and it was really highlighted in the 2020 election. One example was how they blocked a negative story about the Xiden family corrupt business practices overseas.

The article violated their guidelines on doxxing since the article published the personal email address. It was shoddy journalism.

Trump, Devin Nunez, Matt Gaetz.

That isn't the reason they blocked the story, you lying douchebag.

Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz have active Twitter and Facebook profiles.

Are you denying that the NY Post article published personal information?

 

[bripat9643]

Where does it do that?

It’s in the bill that you started a thread on.

You said the Constitution requires it.

 

[bripat9643]

There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.

Can you name three?

Trump was one as well...and it was really highlighted in the 2020 election. One example was how they blocked a negative story about the Xiden family corrupt business practices overseas.

The article violated their guidelines on doxxing since the article published the personal email address. It was shoddy journalism.

Trump, Devin Nunez, Matt Gaetz.

That isn't the reason they blocked the story, you lying douchebag.

Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz have active Twitter and Facebook profiles.

Are you denying that the NY Post article published personal information?

They have both been censored, moron.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does it do that?

It’s in the bill that you started a thread on.

You said the Constitution requires it.

It was a typo. I meant to say I’m looking at the constitution which has no requirement that speech be exercised fairly.

 

[colfax_m]

They have both been censored, moron.

Prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(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.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

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.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

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.

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

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

LOL

You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.

lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers

Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

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.

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.

That's the point I was making.

No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.

If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

NOTHING in the TOS forbade such conduct and it happened anyway

That’s not true. It’s in their community standards.

Ex Post Facto

 

[bripat9643]

Let Freedom Ring ....

Down with all who HATE the US Constitution.

Does that go for those who tried to install a president who clearly lost an election?

No one did that, turd.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Where does it do that?

It’s in the bill that you started a thread on.

You said the Constitution requires it.

It was a typo. I meant to say I’m looking at the constitution which has no requirement that speech be exercised fairly.

It's not a free speech issue.

 

[colfax_m]

Ex Post Facto

They’ve had the policy about vaccines since October 2020.

 

[colfax_m]

It's not a free speech issue.

It 100% is a free speech issue. Everything we are talking about relates to speech.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ex Post Facto

They’ve had the policy about vaccines since October 2020.

Right. Ex Post Facto.