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

[bripat9643]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

It sure as hell did claim it, moron. I posted the evidence.

Which is what I said. "you posted it." Which you did with a link to a lawsuit dismissed because they are covered by rule 230.

Thanks for posting that. It was very helpful to show they are protected by the law.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron.

Nope, it doesn't. So says the FCC and when they say that, it means something. Whereas when you say something, folks just point at you and laugh.

Who does rule 230 cover?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230​

​

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider​

 

[Faun]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

It sure as hell did claim it, moron. I posted the evidence.

Which is what I said. "you posted it." Which you did with a link to a lawsuit dismissed because they are covered by rule 230.

Thanks for posting that. It was very helpful to show they are protected by the law.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron.

Nope, it doesn't. So says the FCC and when they say that, it means something. Whereas when you say something, folks just point at you and laugh.

Who does rule 230 cover?

Non-publishing interactive computer services.

 

[John T. Ford]

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

It includes people who live in that Alt Left Reality of Fake News.

 

[John T. Ford]

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.

Yep ...

Those diseased minded Leftist believe it happened.

 

[struth]

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?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nope, since you don't have a right to use their service.

No constitutional right, but a contractual right. Unless you are now arguing that no one has a right to enforce contracts.

Just like restaurants can deny service to people who don't dress according to their policies.

That's an offer and rejection of an implied contract between the restaurant and the would-be patron. Facebook and users have both an express and implied contractual relationship.

You are not in the type of occupation where you frequently review or enter into contracts, are you?

 

[bripat9643]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

It sure as hell did claim it, moron. I posted the evidence.

Which is what I said. "you posted it." Which you did with a link to a lawsuit dismissed because they are covered by rule 230.

Thanks for posting that. It was very helpful to show they are protected by the law.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron.

Nope, it doesn't. So says the FCC and when they say that, it means something. Whereas when you say something, folks just point at you and laugh.

Who does rule 230 cover?

Non-publishing interactive computer services.

You define non publishers as non publishers?

You're a fucking moron.

Facebook is a publisher. You have said so yourself.

 

[Faun]

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.

Yep ...

Those diseased minded Leftist believe it happened.

"Stop the steal" was a figment of your imagination?

 

[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?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

Oh, yeah.

"Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great," Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted Wednesday evening regarding the company's response. "And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we're blocking: unacceptable."

Translation:
Opps. Sorry. We didn't give any context AT ALL until MANY people called us out on it. It was an innocent mistake. We needed time to make up an excuse for blocking information harmful to OUR Presidential candidate. We should have those excuses already prepared.

Even by the loosest definition of "doxxing," this excuse is a stretch. Nobody "hacked" Hunter's laptop. The idiot left it at a computer repair place and never returned for it. He had no expectation of privacy at that point.

BUT WAIT!!! I thought all this stuff was a RUSSIAN HOAX and the laptop info was all manufactured bullshit?

JUST BE HONEST Jack. You ran cover for your candidate. Quit being deceptive.

 

[WEATHER53]

Time to close this as it is concluded beyond all doubt that Facebook is censoring speech in an undisclosed manner. Additionally, compelling them to cease that is Not a restriction on their “speech” but rather a cease order on the ACTIONS they have and are taking.

 

[WEATHER53]

Libs need a new hoax what with the Jews are The Problem thread failing and the manipulated gas crisis failing also and this Facebook absurdity

I think the best thing to hang you feelings hat on right now is the witch hunt revival of what some NY state prosecutor is going to do to finally get Trump big time this umpteenth time

 

[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?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

Twitter lied, and Business Insider is a leftwing propaganda organ.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," Twitter said of the policy, which it has had since 2018.

Did that apply to illegally-obtain Tax Returns?

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's not a free speech issue.

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

Everything we are talking about relates to a contractual relationship between social media and users.

But no contract can violate the law. No contract is valid that permits you to do something otherwise illegal or makes illegal something that is allowed by law.

That is a correct statement of law. But, what facts are you referring to?

The "contractual relationship between social media and users" that you spoke of.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's not a free speech issue.

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

Everything we are talking about relates to a contractual relationship between social media and users.

But no contract can violate the law. No contract is valid that permits you to do something otherwise illegal or makes illegal something that is allowed by law.

That is a correct statement of law. But, what facts are you referring to?

The "contractual relationship between social media and users" that you spoke of.

What illegal actions?

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's not a free speech issue.

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

Everything we are talking about relates to a contractual relationship between social media and users.

But no contract can violate the law. No contract is valid that permits you to do something otherwise illegal or makes illegal something that is allowed by law.

That is a correct statement of law. But, what facts are you referring to?

The "contractual relationship between social media and users" that you spoke of.

What illegal actions?

Not illegal actions, LEGAL ones. They can't call it a contract and say that if you talk bad about Biden we shadowban you. There is no law stating that you can't talk bad about Biden, so any contract that states they can ban you based on that is null and void.

If you want to do that, 230 no longer applies and you can be sued. You can't call yourself a neutral platform when YOU'RE NOT. Just like I can't call myself a 501c nonprofit if I am in fact running a for-profit business. Is it illegal to run a for-profit business? Of course not, but you don't get the tax advantages if you do so.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's not a free speech issue.

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

Everything we are talking about relates to a contractual relationship between social media and users.

But no contract can violate the law. No contract is valid that permits you to do something otherwise illegal or makes illegal something that is allowed by law.

That is a correct statement of law. But, what facts are you referring to?

The "contractual relationship between social media and users" that you spoke of.

What illegal actions?

Not illegal actions, LEGAL ones. They can't call it a contract and say that if you talk bad about Biden we shadowban you. There is no law stating that you can't talk bad about Biden, so any contract that states they can ban you based on that is null and void.

If you want to do that, 230 no longer applies and you can be sued. You can't call yourself a neutral platform when YOU'RE NOT.

People can legally enter into contracts where they agree to give up certain rights. The problem is that Facebook didn't include such terms. They unilaterally changed the contract terms.

 

[struth]

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?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

that's what I said "

sharing hacked materials​

They of course never had such a policy when it was stories about the President...it just happened to be the policy when it was negative stories about Xiden's and his son's corrupt business deals with foreign nations

 

[Faun]

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?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

Twitter lied, and Business Insider is a leftwing propaganda organ.

Oh, fucking moron? About what did they lie?