Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis To Sign Bill Banning Social Media ‘Deplatforming’

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't know why you're so convinced that liberals are your enemies. Traditionally, they're as excited as you are about government controlling businesses.

This is a lie.

Necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence intended to safeguard the environment, ensure the safety of working Americans and consumers, and maintain the integrity of the markets is not to ‘control’ business – it is nothing like what conservatives seek to do with regard to social media.

 

[DBA]

Expressing opinions you don't like = being an asshole?

Sometimes. You’ve expressed opinions as to how you’d love to see a lot of people dead and hope for that.

That’s you being an asshole by expressing an opinion.

Communists/Socialists/Marxists have murdered MILLIONS. Of course I want them dead. You should too.

Expressing Marxist views is being an asshole, in my opinion. According to you, that's good enough for a ban.

It will happen to you eventually.

Wow, you have a very warped opinion of your own deplorable behavior.

You yourself said you were an asshole, now you’re whitewashing it. This is why we can’t have nice things. Wishing the deaths of other people is behavior that will get you kicked off platforms for good reason. It ruins the experience for others.

Users were banned from Facebook and Twitter for posting opposing opinions, not overwhelmingly universal opinions, like murder is bad.

I know Democrats understand this, they just don’t care because it is currently to their benefit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You obviously have not seen the reasons for the bans, have you? They have NOTHING to do with being and asshole or violating rules. NOTHING!!!

Here is the most common example -- expressing an opinion that the 2020 election was stolen = ban (IT REALLY HAPPENED THOUSANDS OF TIMES)

Sometimes social media platforms just don’t want to be home to fringe conspiracy theories. For example, Facebook doesn’t allow people to talk about the Holocaust being fake.

Right. And Facebook should have the right to kick that shit off their platform.

Some hotel owners do not want to accommodate certain people.

YOU DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM!!!

You value some opinions more than others, and therefore apply the rules you want because they meet your standard of justice/fairness.

 

[colfax_m]

To some extent.

This right here....this is the problem.

NO PRINCIPLES!!!

Some opinions and attitudes are more valuable than others, in your mind, and you are willing to force those with your deemed less-valuable opinions to give up their choices because you deem them less valuable.

The principle is that identity can be a protected class but behavior cannot. No ones opinions are protected by any PA law.

Neither Facebook or I can force you to give up opinions. That’s not within our power.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Expressing opinions you don't like = being an asshole?

Sometimes. You’ve expressed opinions as to how you’d love to see a lot of people dead and hope for that.

That’s you being an asshole by expressing an opinion.

Communists/Socialists/Marxists have murdered MILLIONS. Of course I want them dead. You should too.

Expressing Marxist views is being an asshole, in my opinion. According to you, that's good enough for a ban.

It will happen to you eventually.

Wow, you have a very warped opinion of your own deplorable behavior.

You yourself said you were an asshole, now you’re whitewashing it. This is why we can’t have nice things. Wishing the deaths of other people is behavior that will get you kicked off platforms for good reason. It ruins the experience for others.

Users were banned from Facebook and Twitter for posting opposing opinions, not overwhelmingly universal opinions, like murder is bad.

I know Democrats understand this, they just don’t care because it is currently to their benefit.

And this is the point.

Facebook and Twitter can ban whatever they want because it's their property. That principle should apply EVERYWHERE!!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To some extent.

This right here....this is the problem.

NO PRINCIPLES!!!

Some opinions and attitudes are more valuable than others, in your mind, and you are willing to force those with your deemed less-valuable opinions to give up their choices because you deem them less valuable.

The principle is that identity can be a protected class but behavior cannot. No ones opinions are protected by any PA law.

Neither Facebook or I can force you to give up opinions. That’s not within our power.

But, Facebook can ban people from their platform because of their opinions, right?

(this is a trap)

 

[colfax_m]

Users were banned from Facebook and Twitter for posting opposing opinions, not overwhelmingly universal opinions, like murder is bad.

It’s up to the platform to decide what opinions are bad enough to warrant removal.

Such as COVID misinformation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Users were banned from Facebook and Twitter for posting opposing opinions, not overwhelmingly universal opinions, like murder is bad.

It’s up to the platform to decide what opinions are bad enough to warrant removal.

Such as COVID misinformation.

...or believing that 77 virgins await a man who dies serving Allah.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can a hotel refuse service to a Biden supporter?

It was never the role nor responsibility of FB or other social media platforms to be a ‘neutral venue’ for political discussion and debate – that’s an absurd, ridiculous rightwing contrivance.

Social media are not the ‘public square,’ it’s private property – and just as a private property owner can lawfully compel protesters and demonstrators to leave his private property because he opposes the issue being protested, so too may FB and other social media refuse to accommodate content it opposes or wishes to not facilitate.

 

[colfax_m]

...or believing that 77 virgins await a man who dies serving Allah.

True. Imagine if Republicans demanded that platforms keep up “pro-Jihad” speech.

You know, because y’all are so into protecting speech for everyone, not just yourself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Can a hotel refuse service to a Biden supporter?

It was never the role nor responsibility of FB or other social media platforms to be a ‘neutral venue’ for political discussion and debate – that’s an absurd, ridiculous rightwing contrivance.

Social media are not the ‘public square,’ it’s private property – and just as a private property owner can lawfully compel protesters and demonstrators to leave his private property because he opposes the issue being protested, so too may FB and other social media refuse to accommodate content it opposes or wishes to not facilitate.

You're still making a judgment call on what is acceptable.

Two Muslims in a hotel are discussing how serving Allah will get them 77 virgins. Hotel owner finds that discussion reprehensible. Kicks them out.

Is that okay?

 

[colfax_m]

To some extent.

This right here....this is the problem.

NO PRINCIPLES!!!

Some opinions and attitudes are more valuable than others, in your mind, and you are willing to force those with your deemed less-valuable opinions to give up their choices because you deem them less valuable.

The principle is that identity can be a protected class but behavior cannot. No ones opinions are protected by any PA law.

Neither Facebook or I can force you to give up opinions. That’s not within our power.

But, Facebook can ban people from their platform because of their opinions, right?

(this is a trap)

Of course. Opinions are not protected by PA laws and I don’t think they should.

As i stated in your example earlier, the opinion that infidels should die is not protected and one could deny them service at a motel for it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...or believing that 77 virgins await a man who dies serving Allah.

True. Imagine if Republicans demanded that platforms keep up “pro-Jihad” speech.

You know, because y’all are so into protecting speech for everyone, not just yourself.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

And I am not advocating for platforms to do ANYTHING but what they want to do. But, you don't want to apply that principle universally.

THAT is the problem.

 

[DBA]

Users were banned from Facebook and Twitter for posting opposing opinions, not overwhelmingly universal opinions, like murder is bad.

It’s up to the platform to decide what opinions are bad enough to warrant removal.

Such as COVID misinformation.

Even if you believe these companies should be afforded the protections provided by Section 230, they are violating those by not acting in “good faith”, which is a requirement of the law. Legally, ”good faith” is a defined as a sincere belief to deal fairly with others. Being partisan, which they CLEARLY are, is, by definition, not acting in good faith. They do not apply the same standards across the political spectrum. If they are going to violate Section 230, the protection should be removed. That would be a death nail and they know it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To some extent.

This right here....this is the problem.

NO PRINCIPLES!!!

Some opinions and attitudes are more valuable than others, in your mind, and you are willing to force those with your deemed less-valuable opinions to give up their choices because you deem them less valuable.

The principle is that identity can be a protected class but behavior cannot. No ones opinions are protected by any PA law.

Neither Facebook or I can force you to give up opinions. That’s not within our power.

But, Facebook can ban people from their platform because of their opinions, right?

(this is a trap)

Of course. Opinions are not protected by PA laws and I don’t think they should.

As i stated in your example earlier, the opinion that infidels should die is not protected and one could deny them service at a motel for it.

So, why can't a hotel ban Muslims?

After all, religion is a mere opinion/belief. You would let Facebook ban people for their opinions because it's facebook's private property but hotel owners must accommodate people with opinions they abhor, right?

 

[Canon Shooter]

I have to wonder what the left is so fucking afraid of.

If politicians on the right are so batshit crazy, why not let them speak their peace and prove it?

 

[colfax_m]

...or believing that 77 virgins await a man who dies serving Allah.

True. Imagine if Republicans demanded that platforms keep up “pro-Jihad” speech.

You know, because y’all are so into protecting speech for everyone, not just yourself.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

And I am not advocating for platforms to do ANYTHING but what they want to do. But, you don't want to apply that principle universally.

THAT is the problem.

As much as I’d love for people to do anything they want, we live in a society that doesn’t allow it. We nearly tore ourselves apart when businesses could deny service to black people, hence PA laws.

 

[colfax_m]

So, why can't a hotel ban Muslims.

After all, religion is a mere opinion/belief. You would let Facebook ban people for their opinions because it's facebook's private property but hotel owners must accommodate people with opinions they abhor, right?

Religion is protected. It’s not just an opinion, it’s a central part of people’s identity. It’s so fundamental to people we enshrined it in the constitution as specifically protected from government.

 

[DBA]

Users were banned from Facebook and Twitter for posting opposing opinions, not overwhelmingly universal opinions, like murder is bad.

It’s up to the platform to decide what opinions are bad enough to warrant removal.

Such as COVID misinformation.

...or believing that 77 virgins await a man who dies serving Allah.

I might add that there is a litany of what I would call misinformation on social media, particularly in favor of Democrats. Nobody seems to care. I don’t care either as long as they allow both sides to be heard.

 

[colfax_m]

If politicians on the right are so batshit crazy, why not let them speak their peace and prove it?

They’re allowed to speak all they want. No one is stopping them. It’s just that you shouldn’t have the right to force others to help them.