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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

I'm not trying to devise a legal argument that would exempt people from the contracts they signed.
I'm explaining why government intervention would be wise and needed when monopolistic entities like Facebook are not only selling off their client's personal information without their knowledge but also censoring political thought simultaneously.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not trying to devise a legal argument that would exempt people from the contracts they signed.
I'm explaining why government intervention would be wise and needed when monopolistic entities like Facebook are not only selling off their client's personal information without their knowledge but also censoring political thought simultaneously.

#1 You are justifying a socialist approach to Facebook.

#2 You keep claiming they are selling information without their knowledge. The fact is that Facebook can't "sell" information it doesn't have. How do they have it? Individual consented to it when they accepted the Term's of Service and Data Policies.

#3 They are a private business, it is perfectly fine for them to censor political thought. They are not a government entity.

.
.
.
.>>>>

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

#1 You are justifying a socialist approach to Facebook.

It's more like an anti censorship 1st Amendment position.

#2 You keep claiming they are selling information without their knowledge. The fact is that Facebook can't "sell" information it doesn't have. How do they have it? Individual consented to it when they accepted the Term's of Service and Data Policies.

You didn't understand the first time I mentioned it that the average Facebook dope isn't going to pore over the Terms of Service agreement with their lawyer there to decipher the legal gobbledy-gook to understand how they are being spied on and exploited?

#3 They are a private business, it is perfectly fine for them to censor political thought. They are not a government entity.

Not so fine when Facebook denies and lies about what they do. Not so great when their great unprecedented power can be used to corrupt elections and mold public opinion surreptitiously.

In Facebook We Antitrust

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Facebook is a private company. The Government has no right to dictate their business model.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Ah....more big government.

 

[bodecea]

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

How much did you get paid to say that?

 

[22lcidw]

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.
.
.
.>>>>

The internet has private companies with very progressive socialist ideas and globalism agendas and it leans that way.

 

[bodecea]

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.
.
.
.>>>>

The internet has private companies with very progressive socialist ideas and globalism agendas and it leans that way.

If you don't like it, start an internet that is right leaning.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If you don't like it, start an internet that is right leaning.

I don't like it just like I don't like how Facebook exploits and spies on the dopes that use their services.

 

[bodecea]

If you don't like it, start an internet that is right leaning.

I don't like it just like I don't like how Facebook exploits and spies on the dopes that use their services.

Then, don't use it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Then, don't use it.

I don't just like I don't do many things I disapprove of. This isn't a question of what I do.

 

[2aguy]

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.

This was explained by TheDailyWire's Jeremy Borering.....

A magazine or newspaper controls the content of what they publish, so anything that is libel is their responsibility.

The telephone company doesn't allow edit the content that goes through their system so they aren't responsible for liable.


Facebook claimed they didn't edit content....they do, so they can't hide behind the defense of the phone company, they are actually responsible for what appears on Facebook...if they stop editing content, they would be safe....

 

[justoffal]

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

Don't be so sure. Bob Barr is a big critic of Facebook as a monopoly.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

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.

Monopoly is the key word here.

Jo

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's more like an anti censorship 1st Amendment position.

It isn't the first amendment position, it's a socialist control of private business position.

Typical lib position, if private business does something you don't like call in big bother.

You didn't understand the first time I mentioned it that the average Facebook dope isn't going to pore over the Terms of Service agreement with their lawyer there to decipher the legal gobbledy-gook to understand how they are being spied on and exploited?

Your claim was they didn't consent and had no knowledge. Which was wrong, the information was provided and they did consent. The fact they didn't understand what they consented to is the individuals problem.


.>>>>

 

[skye]

Zuckerborg piece of shit.... go live in China....traitor

 

[busybee01]

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.

It is unconstitutional. Facebook can do anything they want with their property. Free speech only prevents government from stifling free speech. You have no free speech rights nor is Facebook a monopoly. Anyone who has a computer and internet connection can communicate with other users online.

 

[busybee01]

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.

The government cannot regulate the internet. The idea that you cannot communicate with others on the internet is absurd. No they should not be required to give ALL voices equal access. That would be a illegal taking by the government.

 

[busybee01]

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.

I'm not trying to devise a legal argument that would exempt people from the contracts they signed.
I'm explaining why government intervention would be wise and needed when monopolistic entities like Facebook are not only selling off their client's personal information without their knowledge but also censoring political thought simultaneously.

They are not monopolies. All someone needs is a internet connection to communicate with others on the internet. Government intervention is not wise and should be fought at all costs.

 

[TNHarley]

Bake that cake!