Florida Senator introduces bill to fine facebook if they censor user's religious or political speech

[basquebromance]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

 

[MindWars]

looks like this board better take a hint LOL when it comes to infowars bahaahahh

 

[mdk]

A silly piece of red meat and overreach that will go nowhere.

 

[Toronado3800]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

One is a fool to use Fakebook.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Doing something to control social media censorship isn't "silly". I assume government has oversight control on these
billion dollar businesses. They should exercise that control and make sure public airwaves are not shut down for those that profess to some beliefs but not others.

I was under the impression that all points of view were protected by the Constitution. Am I wrong?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Doing something to control social media censorship isn't "silly". I assume government has oversight control on these
billion dollar businesses. They should exercise that control and make sure public airwaves are not shut down for those that profess to some beliefs but not others.

Psst - social media is a private company that uses the internet. It dosen't use airwaves.

I was under the impression that all points of view were protected by the Constitution. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are incorrect.

The Constitution prevents speech being inhibited by government entities, not private businesses.

Glad I could help you understand the distinction.

.>>>>

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

All good points but the ubiquitous internet is nothing like a newspaper. Can the government regulate the internet as a public utility? Yes. Should Twitter, Facebook and other monopolistic internet giants be required to give ALL voices equal access? Yes.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Psst - social media is a private company that uses the internet. It dosen't use airwaves.

Psst...the internet is regulated as a public utility. A victory for net neutrality: Why the Internet is an essential public utility

Yes, you are incorrect.

The Constitution prevents speech being inhibited by government entities, not private businesses.

Glad I could help you understand the distinction.

As a public utility the government has every right and duty to see that monopolistic giants like Facebook do NOT favor one point of view and censor the other.
I don't think you yourself understand this distinction.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Psst - social media is a private company that uses the internet. It dosen't use airwaves.

Psst...the internet is regulated as a public utility. A victory for net neutrality: Why the Internet is an essential public utility

Yes, you are incorrect.

The Constitution prevents speech being inhibited by government entities, not private businesses.

Glad I could help you understand the distinction.

As a public utility the government has every right and duty to see that monopolistic giants like Facebook do NOT favor one point of view and censor the other.
I don't think you yourself understand this distinction.

Psst - The government doesn't regulate the internet as a public utility. Net Neutrality is dead -- >> U.S. 'net neutrality' rules will expire on June 11: FCC | Reuters

The internet isn't a public utility, it is a collection of private businesses. Private business are allowed to censor content and then let the market determine success of failure. Wanting to socialize private entities under government control is a very socialistic desire. No thank you.
.
.
.>>>>

 

[Toronado3800]

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

All good points but the ubiquitous internet is nothing like a newspaper. Can the government regulate the internet as a public utility? Yes. Should Twitter, Facebook and other monopolistic internet giants be required to give ALL voices equal access? Yes.

I'll side with you on that any entity with more than some percentage of the internet traffic have additional regulations.

IF

We get everyone to admit that is a big brother "liberal" regulation.

We apply it equally to the only church or even newspaper in town also. Obviously the newspaper may be unable to print "every" letter but still.

 

[BlackFlag]

Doing something to control social media censorship isn't "silly". I assume government has oversight control on these
billion dollar businesses. They should exercise that control and make sure public airwaves are not shut down for those that profess to some beliefs but not others.

I was under the impression that all points of view were protected by the Constitution. Am I wrong?

Yes big gubmint needs to completely rip their right to free speech to shreds. Give the big fed gubmint control of private companies. MAGA!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Psst - The government doesn't regulate the internet as a public utility. Net Neutrality is dead -- >> U.S. 'net neutrality' rules will expire on June 11: FCC | Reuters

I did not see that, needless to say.

The internet isn't a public utility, it is a collection of private businesses. Private business are allowed to censor content and then let the market determine success of failure. Wanting to socialize private entities under government control is a very socialistic desire. No thank you.

However Facebook allows political groups and advertisers to access user's data without their consent or knowledge.
It's very convenient to think the market will fix any problem but that's pie in the sky idealism. The Cambridge Analytica scandal

Especially when many people aren't even aware they are being spied on and exploited by
Zuckerberg and his ilk.

 

[WorldWatcher]

However Facebook allows political groups and advertisers to access user's data without their consent or knowledge.

False, people consent to the Term's of Service and Data Policies as part of the registration process.

Consent - Yes, they gave consent when they created an account.

Knowledge - The fact that they didn't read the Terms of Service and Data Policies that were included with the registration process, is not "without their knowledge". The information was available, choosing NOT to read and understand something presented to you is not "without their knowledge".

Terms of Service
Data Policy
.
.
.>>>>

 

[BlackFlag]

However Facebook allows political groups and advertisers to access user's data without their consent or knowledge.

False, people consent to the Term's of Service and Data Policies as part of the registration process.

Consent - Yes, they gave consent when they created an account.

Knowledge - The fact that they didn't read the Terms of Service and Data Policies that were included with the registration process, is not "without their knowledge". The information was available, choosing NOT to read and understand something presented to you is not "without their knowledge".

Terms of Service
Data Policy
.
.
.>>>>

He thinks Facebook is like Trump’s Cambridge Analytica.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

Dumb.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

He thinks Facebook is like Trump’s Cambridge Analytica.

.
.
New bumper sticker...

..................... "Socialism, it's not supported by just the Libs anymore."
.
.
.
.>>>>

 

[BlackFlag]

He thinks Facebook is like Trump’s Cambridge Analytica.

.
.
New bumper sticker...

..................... "Socialism, it's not supported by just the Libs anymore."
.
.
.
.>>>>

The overlap between ideas supported by Trump and the likes of Bernie Sanders and AOC is pretty amusing

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

False, people consent to the Term's of Service and Data Policies as part of the registration process.

Consent - Yes, they gave consent when they created an account.

Knowledge - The fact that they didn't read the Terms of Service and Data Policies that were included with the registration process, is not "without their knowledge". The information was available, choosing NOT to read and understand something presented to you is not "without their knowledge".

Nobody "chooses" not to understand. A page of dense, cryptic arcane term of art legalese is hardly informed consent
regardless of what your pretend.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nobody "chooses" not to understand. A page of dense, cryptic arcane term of art legalese is hardly informed consent
regardless of what your pretend.

Good luck with that.

Can I go to the bank and say, hey I don't owe you this money because of cryptic arcane terms of art legalese in this loan application that I signed.

Nope, you signed that you read it and accept the terms.

Just like the consent given to create the account says you reviewed the Terms of Service and Data Policy, have read it and understand it and give consent.
.
.
.
.>>>>