Florida Introduces "Stop Social Media Censorship Act"

Wut?
It's a fucking miracle! I eat, enjoy protected speech (not really, I live in China), have a job, make a living and I don't touch FB or Twitter.

I think he is referring to people who make their living from social media. But IDGAF as I've always said FB, twitter etc are the scourge of the internet and just need to die.
 
They only have the power that we allow them. If their users fled the platform it would die.
You are free to leave social media, however leaving it doesn't stop it from affecting your life. I'm not using any social media, but the misinformation spread trough it still affect me trough other people.
 
They only have the power that we allow them. If their users fled the platform it would die.

Where would these people go? To a more free alternative, that wouldn't show up on search results because it's curated by one competitor and advertisers won't touch it because they cannot control what is on it? Yeah, that's going to be a thriving platform when the other competitors fact check it into oblivion and governments start banning even being able to access them.
 
I'm not saying you don't have to use Facebook, as an individual. The vast majority of people, however, use something like Facebook. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon - all controlled by a very small group of very powerful tech companies with very similar ideologies and with the same corporate advertiser backings. Some of these groups have even taken controlling stakes in actual media and news companies and get to choose what 'fact checks' are valid, and which ones are not. This isn't a 'hurr dur just don't use Facebook' - this goes way past that.

I'm not saying you don't have to use Facebook, as an individual. The vast majority of people, however, use something like Facebook. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon - all controlled by a very small group of very powerful tech companies with very similar ideologies and with the same corporate advertiser backings. Some of these groups have even taken controlling stakes in actual media and news companies and get to choose what 'fact checks' are valid, and which ones are not. This isn't a 'hurr dur just don't use Facebook' - this goes way past that.
If what you are saying was true, that ideology would be dominating the political scene. Last I checked, Trump won the presidency and no left-wing cabal stopped him. Heck, Facebook was complicit to some degree in the whole Cambridge Analytica debacle.

Do I hate that Facebook is full of misinformation? Yes. Can we legislate it away? I'm pretty darned liberal and even I don't think we can. We all just need to take some responsibility and be better consumers of news. Stop trusting your Facebook feed, Wikipedia, and the screaming heads on cable news. The real problem here is the way we all retreat into our camps and look for sources that validate whatever we already believe. Facebook and Google are literally built to facilitate this. It's not a coincidence that the polarization in our country has gotten so much worse in the last few election cycles.
 
You are free to leave social media, however leaving it doesn't stop it from affecting your life. I'm not using any social media, but the misinformation spread trough it still affect me trough other people.

I meant that if enough users left, that it would reduce Facebook's effectiveness, not just if I left, I am not a member.

In other words, if Facebook has 200 million US user accounts and 199 million left, no one would care much about what gets posted or censured on Facebook anymore.
 
I meant that if enough users left, that it would reduce Facebook's effectiveness, not just if I left, I am not a member.

In other words, if Facebook has 200 million US user accounts and 199 million left, no one would care much about what gets posted or censured on Facebook anymore.

This isn't just about Facebook. Every single social media platform has interchangeable people with interchangeable ideologies.
 
I meant that if enough users left, that it would reduce Facebook's effectiveness, not just if I left, I am not a member.

In other words, if Facebook has 200 million US user accounts and 199 million left, no one would care much about what gets posted or censured on Facebook anymore.
Yes, but how is that helpful? People aren't going to leave social media in droves. Especially when they're being indoctrinated to a specific world view while dissenting views are suppressed and hidden from them.
 
Is the misinformation going to go away if you force social media to leave all their content alone? You're likely going to have an even bigger mess of factually inaccurate BS floating around.
 
This isn't just about Facebook. Every single social media platform has interchangeable people with interchangeable ideologies.

It's immaterial to what I am saying.

These platforms only have the power that we, as users, give them.
 
Sorry if I come across as rude, but you're just incorrect. Fascism is extreme right wing nationalism. Ask any reputable historian. The inclusion of the word "socialist" in the Nazi name was a rhetorical gambit. Socialism and Fascism are literally polar opposites on the political spectrum.

We can certainly agree, however, that many of the big tech companies are too big and need to be broken up.
Sorry but if you had actually read Marx you would disagree. All Nazi's are fascists but not all fascists are Nazi's. Fascism is a politically philosophy and a system of government. What Marx describes as the first step in the transition to a Communist state is almost exactly what a fascist government looks like. Relative to communism fascism is to the right however relative to a classically liberal constitutional republic fascism is to the left.

Of course a progressive (marxist) historian embarrassed by the parallels between fascism and progressiveness would deny the association...
 
Yes, but how is that helpful? People aren't going to leave social media in droves. Especially when they're being indoctrinated to a specific world view while dissenting views are suppressed and hidden from them.

It's a personal decision, just like joining is. But I am pretty sure that what is not helpful is allowing the government, even if it is Florida, to pass laws governing speech on private business social media platforms.

I see that as a bad road with no happy ending.

The 1st Amendment is pretty clear on this.
 
It's a personal decision, just like joining is. But I am pretty sure that what is not helpful is allowing the government, even if it is Florida, to pass laws governing speech on private business social media platforms.

I see that as a bad road with no happy ending.

The 1st Amendment is pretty clear on this.
Everything is a personal decision. The government's job is to prevent people from making decisions detrimental to society trough education, or if that fails trough guidance, and if that fails too, then by rule of law.
Taking drugs is a personal decision too, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't step in to educate people about the dangers of drugs, and to prosecute those who sell and produce hardcore drugs. And make no mistake, consuming news exclusively from social media is a hardcore drug.
 
They only have the power that we allow them. If their users fled the platform it would die.

True, but how do you get the word out that it's going on when the media is controlled to continue to state its false? You'd have to wake everyone up.

There banning and censoring those that are speaking out about it.
 
Where would these people go? To a more free alternative, that wouldn't show up on search results because it's curated by one competitor and advertisers won't touch it because they cannot control what is on it? Yeah, that's going to be a thriving platform when the other competitors fact check it into oblivion and governments start banning even being able to access them.


I suppose they can hang out on the [H] like I do :D
 
Everything is a personal decision. The government's job is to prevent people from making decisions detrimental to society trough education, or if that fails trough guidance, and if that fails too, then by rule of law.
Taking drugs is a personal decision too, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't step in to educate people about the dangers of drugs, and to prosecute those who sell and produce hardcore drugs. And make no mistake, consuming news exclusively from social media is a hardcore drug.


That is not the government's job? Where do you even get that?

Let me quote you "The government's job is to prevent people from making decisions detrimental to society trough education, or if that fails trough guidance, and if that fails too, then by rule of law.The government's job is to prevent people from making decisions detrimental to society trough education, or if that fails trough guidance, and if that fails too, then by rule of law."

You really believe this?

Show me where any of these "powers" are expressed in the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Education_Organization_Act
Congress established the United States Department of Education (ED) with the Department of Education Organization Act. Under the law, ED's mission is to:[1]

  • Strengthen the federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual;
  • Supplement and complement the efforts of states, the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the states, the private sector, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education;
  • Encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in federal education programs;
  • Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information;
  • Increase the accountability of federal education programs to the president, the Congress, and the public.
I don't see anything in this that says "prevent people from making decisions detrimental to society".

I do see a whole lot about ensuring that people have access to education and that education funding and programs are run properly. I think it's sort of assumed that well educated people will, by virtue of their education, not make stupid decisions for themselves, but their decisions are their own, as are the results of said decisions.

I have no idea what "tough guidance" is supposed to be, it's either law or it's not.

And lastly, "rule of law" which is definitely the government's thing, but we all know now that laws do not prevent anything. Laws only punish law breakers. That's all there is.

So if you can find anything at all that is illegal, and never happens anymore, because the law "prevents it", we'll have something to discuss for sure. Maybe I'll eat some crow, but I am presently doubtful.
 
True, but how do you get the word out that it's going on when the media is controlled to continue to state its false? You'd have to wake everyone up.

There banning and censoring those that are speaking out about it.

I'm only responsible for myself, just like you.
 
I just find it odd that people who would typically prefer the government be very hands off with speech would also want them to be very hands on in a matter with a private company. Wouldn't government intervention like this go against the small government model that most right wing leaning people prefer?
 
I just find it odd that people who would typically prefer the government be very hands off with speech would also want them to be very hands on in a matter with a private company. Wouldn't government intervention like this go against the small government model that most right wing leaning people prefer?

Ideally, yes. But when those private companies are large enough to wield political power of their own and overtly/covertly influence people - I tend to believe in the need for reclassification at the minimum. I'm not willing to stand by mega corporations using free speech as a shield to change the way people think, and ultimately, vote.
 
I just find it odd that people who would typically prefer the government be very hands off with speech would also want them to be very hands on in a matter with a private company. Wouldn't government intervention like this go against the small government model that most right wing leaning people prefer?


I think it's because they feel that government intervention in this case is "right".

They are OK with it as long as it's working "in their favor", against their "detractors" so to speak. I just don't think they are considering that it could be used against them as well.
 
it is already against them, they want it to stop. and like i keep saying, if the owner/ceo of a company declares it "a public square" and a "human right" everybody better have fucking access...
 
Is the misinformation going to go away if you force social media to leave all their content alone? You're likely going to have an even bigger mess of factually inaccurate BS floating around.

yeah on the one hand you have people 'they trying to take away our freedoms of speech! rawwr!!' people
on the other hand you have conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, Qanon, russian trolls, isis recruitment etc
 
Ideally, yes. But when those private companies are large enough to wield political power of their own and overtly/covertly influence people - I tend to believe in the need for reclassification at the minimum. I'm not willing to stand by mega corporations using free speech as a shield to change the way people think, and ultimately, vote.

I'm thinking this comment through, about "... using free speech as a shield".

Free speech is a protection against government control of speech. I'm just having a hard time picturing a corporation taking advantage of something that is meant to protect them, and is in fact doing exactly that. It makes me think that there is nothing at all wrong with Free Speech and that if there is an issue, it's with something else, not with the government or the Constitution.

Perhaps I give people too much credit, and maybe they are not all the ignorant brain dead sheep that some think they are. I mean really, "Everyone else is a dumb-ass, but not me right?" Are their clueless people, certainly, Youtube displays that reality every day. I watched a Youtube video of AOC saying that her constituents include Non-Resident Aliens, but the video poster claimed she was saying "illegal aliens were her constituents. I don't think AOC is a particularly bright person myself, but it seems that she is a lot smarter than all the people commenting on the "illegal alien" thing because there were hundreds of posts in which no one called the poster on his false claim. Either these people don't know the difference between a Non-Resident Alien and an Illegal Alien, or they are so caught up in their hate for AOC that they can't even be bothered to watch the video before ranting.

AOC says enough stupid shit that nobody needs to fabricate stuff to make her look bad.

So maybe I am wrong, and people are too easy to lead around by the nose. That is supposed to be why the government supports education, because an educated population is the foundation of a free society. But if this is true, and there is a huge problem with stupid people, then that is a government failing of another sort, and we should fix that and not compound the problems with new wrong choices.

Something may be broke, so let's not make to problem worse.
 
it is already against them, they want it to stop. and like i keep saying, if the owner/ceo of a company declares it "a public square" and a "human right" everybody better have fucking access...

In that case, your beef would be with the FTC as there is a real problem with false advertising is there not?
 
I actually think there is some weight to the argument that Facebook, Google, and Twitter have become so ubiquitous that despite being products "sold" (through advertising, mainly) by corporations, some regulation may be in line. However it's a very fucking slippery slope, and at the very least, if the government steps in to protect free speech, it would also need to stop in to stop shit like what went on at Gab and 8chan. When someone's "free speech" is centered on how to gas the kikes or taking revenge on filthy muzzies (obvious sarcasm here) then that shit needs to be stamped out.

The problem there is that the hypocritical right will scream "freeze peach" and "regulate Facebook" until the cows come home, but if the regulation then moves to do something in the other direction, they'll start screaming to deregulate again.
 
they want it regulated(or not, depending how you look at it) fairly. are you guys not getting that? right now the silencing/suppression is only going one way.
 
they want it regulated(or not, depending how you look at it) fairly. are you guys not getting that? right now the silencing/suppression is only going one way.


Once you invite the government to a party, they never want to leave. If Florida does this and the Supreme Court allows it, it won't stop at 75 million users. The law will be proposed in other states, those limits will start to change, 50 million here, 25 million there. And then, at some point, there won't be a user limit and all social media sights, every forum there is that isn't professional or some other off-shoot, will get the same treatment. Furthermore, what is regulated will become a deal.

Try this on for size. No public forum, regardless of for-profit status, can censure anything. The government can't because of the 1st Amendment, and they forced this down to the business and non-profit levels. So now no one can censure anything at all. OK, let's say the whole "incite to violence" thing remains.

Now what?

Just take a look at the [H]'s forum rules, what we are not supposed to post? Now forbid the [H] from censuring that content.
 
Once you invite the government to a party, they never want to leave. If Florida does this and the Supreme Court allows it, it won't stop at 75 million users. The law will be proposed in other states, those limits will start to change, 50 million here, 25 million there. And then, at some point, there won't be a user limit and all social media sights, every forum there is that isn't professional or some other off-shoot, will get the same treatment. Furthermore, what is regulated will become a deal.

Try this on for size. No public forum, regardless of for-profit status, can censure anything. The government can't because of the 1st Amendment, and they forced this down to the business and non-profit levels. So now no one can censure anything at all. OK, let's say the whole "incite to violence" thing remains.

Now what?

Just take a look at the [H]'s forum rules, what we are not supposed to post? Now forbid the [H] from censuring that content.

not making much sense there...
perhaps regulating is the wrong word.
im kinda ok with "stop censoring people or you'll be fined".
[H] is already censored but its not on the same scale, a couple billion users short...
 
they want it regulated(or not, depending how you look at it) fairly. are you guys not getting that? right now the silencing/suppression is only going one way.
This. They silence conservatives and the right, unevenly with the left. The left usually gets a free pass advocating racism, murder, Islamic supremacy, etc. They can violate the same supposed rules but get away scot free.
 
owned by liberals/lefties, controlled by liberals/lefties, therefor an inherent liberal/lefty bias will never be fair unless "regulated"
 
Perhaps a right wing entrepreneur should create a worthy Facebook competitor? Then they can play by their own rulebook.
 
Perhaps a right wing entrepreneur should create a worthy Facebook competitor? Then they can play by their own rulebook.
It's been tried. Facebook etc are far too big and entrenched. In the case of Gab, their domain registrar and all payments like PayPal and credit card processors dumped them, Google and Apple both banned their app from their app stores, and Facebook/Twitter banned them. Poof, no more platforms!
 
Perhaps a right wing entrepreneur should create a worthy Facebook competitor? Then they can play by their own rulebook.
lol typical lefty nonsense...
when the boss/owner says "its a public square" and "a human right" you better carter to everyone fairly.
 
lol typical lefty nonsense...
when the boss/owner says "its a public square" and "a human right" you better carter to everyone fairly.
This too. They all advertised themselves as public squares and open platforms. That's true only if you lean left. Anything center or right that gains momentum is banned and silenced.
 
It's been tried. Facebook etc are far too big and entrenched. In the case of Gab, their domain registrar and all payments like PayPal and credit card processors dumped them, Google and Apple both banned their app from their app stores, and Facebook/Twitter banned them. Poof, no more platforms!
very good point. the left destroyed their chance. "oh just build your own" they keep saying while systematically destroying everything opposed to them...
 
It's still up to businesses to decide what lives up to their community standards. They have a corporate image to protect.

I've heard many women complain that Facebook as either deleted their "anti-men" comments or banned them when discussing issues such as feminism or equality sexes. It isn't just left wing comments getting axed.
 
lol ok...
their standard is "be one of bow to us or we destroy you".
 
Last edited:
If they're breaking any laws through a monopoly or any unethical business practices then fine them to hell for I care.

As far as what they choose to allow on their platform, that's their choice.
 
If they're breaking any laws through a monopoly or any unethical business practices then fine them to hell for I care.

As far as what they choose to allow on their platform, that's their choice.
that is what this thread is about. creating a law to enforce this needed fairness because they will not do it on their own. unethical is an understatement for what they already are doing.
 
Back
Top