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

[dblack]

So, you don't have a problem with, say, a guy like Trump calling up Jack Dorsey and telling him that he (Trump) will use his powers of office to do XYZ unless Twitter bans anything on ABC topic, and such action by Twitter will give political cover for Trump, which will end up screwing you in the end. Then, worried about such action by Trump, Dorsey does as commanded.

If you have any proof that such a thing is going on, sure, I'd have a problem with it. But good grief, you could make such a claim any time a business does something you don't like. That doesn't make it a valid claim.

I really can't get past the rather obvious observation that this is just sore-loser-ism. You all are pissed off because FB and Twitter banned your troll-in-chief, and you're looking for ANY excuse you can find to get revenge on them. Why can't you just accept the fact that lots of people, lots of businesses, think Trump is bad for the country and they won't support him for that reason?

 

[colfax_m]

Of course, no government actor would try to influence social media giants EXCEPT Trump. No one else in government has that power or influence.

Other people in government have what’s called restraint.

 

[dblack]

Here. I'll give you the jerking off emoji. I created it myself out of other emoji. Use it on yourself for lack of foresight and inability to read between the lines.

Does "read between the lines" mean indulge paranoid fantasies?

It's a nice effort, but doesn't quite capture it. I usually go with:

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In an ideal world, having more speech would be better but the algorithms of these platforms is designed to reinforce ideas rather than challenge them. That’s how people wind up getting radicalized.

And THAT is the real problem. How can Facebook deny responsibility for the actions of the algorithms they put into motion? Product liability standards have been completely ignored. PL lawyers would have a field day with that.

Because Facebook doesn’t submit the content and has no ability to approve everything being posted. It’s absolutely impractical to expect them to do so.

Then stop editing content. It's simple.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course, no government actor would try to influence social media giants EXCEPT Trump. No one else in government has that power or influence.

Other people in government have what’s called restraint.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here. I'll give you the jerking off emoji. I created it myself out of other emoji. Use it on yourself for lack of foresight and inability to read between the lines.

Does "read between the lines" mean indulge paranoid fantasies?

It's a nice effort, but doesn't quite capture it. I usually go with:

I like that Jizz-in-my-pants face better too.


If you can't foresee government abuses, you will ALWAYS be behind the curve when it comes to protecting your own liberty. I will leave it at that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you have any proof that such a thing is going on, sure, I'd have a problem with it. But good grief, you could make such a claim any time a business does something you don't like. That doesn't make it a valid claim.

Well, there's a really simple way to allow Facebook et al to avoid such an allegation gaining traction. STOP EDITING CONTENT!!!

At some point, this will spin the other way, and the same people cheering on Facebook will demand government intervention. And my position will not change.

 

[colfax_m]

Then stop editing content. It's simple.

They aren’t editing content. Editing would be substantively altering and would not be protected from liability.

Taking down content is well within their rights and is necessary for them to manage their platforms effectively.

 

[colfax_m]

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary or is this just something that you believe because you want to?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then stop editing content. It's simple.

They aren’t editing content. Editing would be substantively altering and would not be protected from liability.

Taking down content is well within their rights and is necessary for them to manage their platforms effectively.

That is a distinction without a difference.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary or is this just something that you believe because you want to?

Do I have evidence that other people in government lacking restraint?

Oh, boy. Where do I start?

How about the $20+ TRILLION debt. There ain't nothing in that shit but a lack of restraint and it is UNIVERSAL!!! And that is just ONE example.

How can you be so naïve?

 

[hadit]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

But social media can?

you are now giving social media more power than the gov. kinda what they want

They can legally, yes. Ethically and morally, no. And yes, they have more power than the government, by design. You are supposed to have more power than the government as an individual, because government cannot legally shut you up. That's what freedom is all about.

 

[colfax_m]

That is a distinction without a difference.

It’s not. One changes who the speaker is by editing. One simply decides that they don’t want to be the ones publishing the content.

They’re a world apart.

 

[iceberg]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

But social media can?

you are now giving social media more power than the gov. kinda what they want

They can legally, yes. Ethically and morally, no. And yes, they have more power than the government, by design. You are supposed to have more power than the government as an individual, because government cannot legally shut you up. That's what freedom is all about.

no they really can't. sect 230 spells out platform vs. publisher. platform is you are open for all and only shielded from lawsuits because you're not held accountable for what people post. it was meant to PREVENT censorship.

if you want control then you are a publisher and should adhere to a set of rules around that designation. social media has taken all the control of both and the responsibility of neither. that needs to end and sooner or later, it will.

 

[colfax_m]

He

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary or is this just something that you believe because you want to?

Do I have evidence that other people in government lacking restraint?

Oh, boy. Where do I start?

How about the $20+ TRILLION debt. There ain't nothing in that shit but a lack of restraint and it is UNIVERSAL!!! And that is just ONE example.

How can you be so naïve?

Hey, sorry. I was talking about the actual topic.

Government isn’t telling Facebook to take down pro-Trump content. That’s their restraint.

 

[hadit]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

But social media can?

you are now giving social media more power than the gov. kinda what they want

They can legally, yes. Ethically and morally, no. And yes, they have more power than the government, by design. You are supposed to have more power than the government as an individual, because government cannot legally shut you up. That's what freedom is all about.

no they really can't. sect 230 spells out platform vs. publisher. platform is you are open for all and only shielded from lawsuits because you're not held accountable for what people post. it was meant to PREVENT censorship.

if you want control then you are a publisher and should adhere to a set of rules around that designation. social media has taken all the control of both and the responsibility of neither. that needs to end and sooner or later, it will.

True, they do tend to claim they are one or the other as it is convenient to do so. A court will have to reign them in, though, and require them to pick one or the other.

 

[iceberg]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

But social media can?

you are now giving social media more power than the gov. kinda what they want

They can legally, yes. Ethically and morally, no. And yes, they have more power than the government, by design. You are supposed to have more power than the government as an individual, because government cannot legally shut you up. That's what freedom is all about.

no they really can't. sect 230 spells out platform vs. publisher. platform is you are open for all and only shielded from lawsuits because you're not held accountable for what people post. it was meant to PREVENT censorship.

if you want control then you are a publisher and should adhere to a set of rules around that designation. social media has taken all the control of both and the responsibility of neither. that needs to end and sooner or later, it will.

True, they do tend to claim they are one or the other as it is convenient to do so. A court will have to reign them in, though, and require them to pick one or the other.

and that day is coming. people are screaming for their own personal reasons and i understand that. but it doesn't change you can't have total control and no one to answer to. well, unless you are the gov itself.

 

[colfax_m]

no they really can't. sect 230 spells out platform vs. publisher. platform is you are open for all and only shielded from lawsuits because you're not held accountable for what people post. it was meant to PREVENT censorship.

This has it backwards. For starters, section 230 doesn’t spell out platform vs publisher. It doesn’t even use the word platform.

A platform that doesn’t take down content doesn’t need to be shielded from lawsuits because by any law. Courts held that by leaving all content up, such a website would not take any liability regardless of section 230.

The only purpose of section 230 was to give websites the ability to take down content that they wanted to take down without having to accept liability for everything on their website.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary or is this just something that you believe because you want to?

Do I have evidence that other people in government lacking restraint?

Oh, boy. Where do I start?

How about the $20+ TRILLION debt. There ain't nothing in that shit but a lack of restraint and it is UNIVERSAL!!! And that is just ONE example.

How can you be so naïve?

Hey, sorry. I was talking about the actual topic.

Government isn’t telling Facebook to take down pro-Trump content. That’s their restraint.

You said that nobody (other than Trump) in government has a lack of restraint. That is complete horseshit. They ALL lack restraint. They are ALL narcissists. ALL OF THEM. You don't at least SUSPECT such impropriety happens on the daily?

Wow.

I guess there is no hope for humanity. People trust their lives and rights to people who give exactly ZERO fucks about anyone but themselves. (Narcissists)

 

[colfax_m]

He

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary or is this just something that you believe because you want to?

Do I have evidence that other people in government lacking restraint?

Oh, boy. Where do I start?

How about the $20+ TRILLION debt. There ain't nothing in that shit but a lack of restraint and it is UNIVERSAL!!! And that is just ONE example.

How can you be so naïve?

Hey, sorry. I was talking about the actual topic.

Government isn’t telling Facebook to take down pro-Trump content. That’s their restraint.

You said that nobody (other than Trump) in government has a lack of restraint. That is complete horseshit. They ALL lack restraint. They are ALL narcissists. ALL OF THEM. You don't at least SUSPECT such impropriety happens on the daily?

Wow.

I guess there is no hope for humanity. People trust their lives and rights to people who give exactly ZERO fucks about anyone but themselves. (Narcissists)

Jesus, this is a thread about a topic and you go and make it about everything else.

Restraint is not a yes or no thing. Fact is that few if any other lack as much strength as Trump.