Florida Introduces "Stop Social Media Censorship Act"

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.


I still say it's a double edged sword, cuts both ways.

I do not think this is a direction we want to allow our government to go.

If you allow this, more importantly, if the Supreme Court allows this, we are saying that the Government can censure speech. Jesus that's a can of worms we do not want to open and I don't understand how any of you see it as a good thing.

You'll allow it now because you think it'll work in your favor, but what about when that shoe is on the other foot.

I'm a suggesting that you all remember an old saying;

"Be careful what you wish for."
 
Last edited:
Just because it's popular and accessible doesn't mean it's public.
except when the ceo declares it "the new public square" and "a human right"...

I still say it's a double edged sword, cuts both ways.

I do not think this is a direction we want to allow our government to go.

If you allow this, more importantly, if the Supreme Court allows this, we are saying that the Government can censure speech. Jesus that's a can of worms we do not want to open and I don't understand how any of you see it as a good thing.

You'll allow it now because you think it'll work in your favor, but what about when that shoe is on the other foot.
im saying they should enforce no censoring.

anything should go except incitement of violence. dont like what someone says, walk away, they have a right to say it.
 
He declared connectivity a human right.
Speaking is a human right and we still have limits on what we can say and where we can speak.
 
except when the ceo declares it "the new public square" and "a human right"....
Ok, he said that. You've mentioned it more than once in this thread I think.
But....so the fuck what?

Oreos are a human right. Yeah...I said that shit! Must be a fact now.
Maybe one day he'll declare that unicorns are real and make my youngest daughter the happiest little girl ever!!
Can you not see how "the new public square" is marketing/promotion/silliness/meaningless?
 
except when the ceo declares it "the new public square" and "a human right"...


im saying they should enforce no censoring.

anything should go except incitement of violence. dont like what someone says, walk away, they have a right to say it.


Why does the person have this right and not the business?
 
Just because it's popular and accessible doesn't mean it's public. It's not the same as gathering at a park to have a discussion. A better analogy would be being invited over to someone's house or business. They can still eject you if they feel that what you're saying is harmful to their other guests. Again, the market tends to dictate what they allow.


I admit I'm a little baffled by all this.
I'm typically left leaning but here I am suggesting a more right wing approach. Keeping the government out of the matters of a private business and letting the free market dictate how this goes, and also not feeling entitled to post whatever I want on someone else's platform. It's usually the left that get accused of being entitled.. lol
Popular, accessible and OPEN TO EVERYONE = public. It's not even behind any sort of login wall or anything in most cases. By default, for example, youtube will openly show all video on it's google search unless set to private. Trying to set it to a small private audience is somewhat of a hassle.

Accessibility is a huge factor when deciding if something is public or not. Especially on the internet where there is no physical limitation, only security or lack there of to decide how hard it is for others to access the information.
 
Hate speech.
It's an arbitrary rule, they often deem even the mildest centrist viewpoints as hate speech. While antifa and other terrorist organizations promoting violence roam unimpeded.

Sounds like they need to up their censorship game..

Oh wait, yes they remove entire user accoounts and every mention of those people. They remove comments discussing for example Tommy Robinson. But they leave comments discussing Hitler alone. So does that mean that Tommy Robinson is worse than Hitler, or are they're using arbitrary metrics on what is allowed and what is not?

No idea who Tommy Robinson is or why he gets deleted.

Discussing Hitler, who cares? Discussing something isn't the same thing as endorsing it. Show me proof of 'arbitrary metrics'.

You do know that the LAW is necessary to compel businesses to be unbiased. You're basically asking me to lay an egg before even getting a chicken. If there was precedence for a completely unbiased online platform there wouldn't be much need for a law to create one would it?

Yes, there is no law yet compelling a business to be unbiased. Doesn't need to be.

OK, Sorry, scrap that, I'll withdraw the florida proposal, oh wait, I have absolutely zero power over US legislation. And that's how the left blames straight white men for everything. Everything is someone else's fault, cause they are cynical bitter losers, who hate everyone more successful or better looking than them.

Who is blaming who?? I just asked you to put your money where your mouth is... But do I think foreign interests would love nothing more than for my country to tear itself apart? I would be a fool not to.

Because if something doesn't go your way, it must be a conspiracy, it can't be that people are actually fed up with your moronic narratives.

What's my 'moronic' narrative?? That a foreign government interfered with an election? Because that's been going on since the country was founded...

Some good reading for you would be President Washingtons farewell address, if you think I'm talking out of my ass...
 
Sure, the invitation is open to everyone but that doesn't mean everyone can behave how they want. Facebook can still decide what doesn't fit their community standards, they own the site. We're all basically guests on their property so to speak.
 
Ok, he said that. You've mentioned it more than once in this thread I think.
But....so the fuck what?

Oreos are a human right. Yeah...I said that shit! Must be a fact now.
Maybe one day he'll declare that unicorns are real and make my youngest daughter the happiest little girl ever!!
Can you not see how "the new public square" is marketing/promotion/silliness/meaningless?
so he was marketing to congress?
 
Sure, the invitation is open to everyone but that doesn't mean everyone can behave how they want. Facebook can still decide what doesn't fit their community standards, they own the site. We're all basically guests on their property so to speak.
But this isn't true in real life. In fact the laws surrounding the right to public assembly on private property is all over the place:
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.o...dom-of-assembly/assembly-on-private-property/
I personally think that all companies should be able to establish their own guidelines with very strict and defined borders on what they consider to be acceptable or not.

What you see happening is a very vague and blurry lines being drawn allowing the owner to arbitrarily decide what they do and do not want that seems to change on a daily basis.

Then you also have protected classes. It doesn't matter how private the property is, you cannot tell people they're not allowed to use your open to the public services based on their religion, sex, age, gender, ect.

Telling anyone you don't want them using your services which are freely available to anyone because of their thoughts and not their actions puts you on very shaky ground. There really isn't much precedent, legal or otherwise which would lead to a conclusion either way, but thoughts and ideas would probably lend itself to a protected class.
 
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...
Don't assume you know what I've read.

You're just gaslighting. First, progressive doesn't mean Marxist any more than conservative means white supremacist. It's that whole all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares thing. Second, there is no denying that the Nazis were ultra-nationalists. How can you with a straight face claim that their rhetoric has anything to do with any social value inherent to liberalism? Last I checked, all of the neo-nazis in this country weren't lauding Clinton in the last election, were they?

Here's an actual historian debunking your claim: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fascism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ae0db3a4ea84
Can you find a credible, credentialed historian making a claim counter to this? This guy has PhD from Stanford. It's safe to assume he knows more about World War II than either of us ever will.

Again, the left has it's share of monsters. I brought up Stalin in my post when I was pointing out the absurdity of bringing Hitler into this.You are the one that brought the Nazis into this thread. Stop dragging Hitler into this and stop trying to smear those you don't agree with by associating them with him. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest.

It's amazing how people on these forums twist words. Nothing I've said has been in defense of Facebook. I don't even use it. All I'm saying is that this law has no chance of passing constitutional muster under the current supreme court.
 
no problem if it was private. when it's open to the public, then it's got different rules associated with it.
Also, are you saying that even if it was private that the owner of the platform is responsible for everything said/done on the platform? That would mean they're liable for everything that goes on in there. Are you absolutely sure they would want that responsibility?

They already are due to a recent law passed. Go look up why backpage/craigslist personals were taken down.....
 
Social media is a public forum, just because a private company runs it doesn't mean they aren't public. Just as traffic laws are in effect in public car parks run by private companies. Free speech must be upheld in public forums.
Harassment is illegal however, and not covered by free speech. Like any other illegal activity.

For what exactly could be "Florida made me do it"? Be an excuse for? They make you do nothing. They want to prevent facebook from infringing on free speech based on arbitrary malleable excuses that they employ in service of their political biases.

You should be able to say whatever. But facebook prevents you from saying whatever by censoring it. Censoring is not a consequence of your speech. The consequence of saying something stupid is other people ridiculing you or worse. In a healthy society there is no need for self appointed speech police to tell me what is offensive. And sometimes the truth is offensive, that doesn't make it any less true. Should the truth be suppressed then?
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the first amendment. It doesn't protect you from corporations or any other private entity. Facebook has the right to censor you or me or anyone else they wish. If you don't like it, the only remedies are anti-trust action, amending the constitution, or boycotting the platform.

I'll repeat my earlier point. If Kyle Bennett decides he doesn't like what I write, the way I use punctuation, the time of day I post, or any other reasonable or unreasonable criteria he can censor me. It's a private site, that's how it works. Facebook is not a government entity and the first amendment has no bearing on what they do.

The big platforms have some culpability in election interference, ISIS recruitment, and a host of other ills. Do you really want them to bear no responsibility for the contents on their sites? If they were sued because content was on their site that led to something tragic, they could turn around and use a law like this as defense (though this law will never hold up in the courts).
 
They already are due to a recent law passed. Go look up why backpage/craigslist personals were taken down.....
bad legislation because common carrier status isn't applied to them.

Always have bad legislation when you go think of the children and female exploitation.
 
Don't assume you know what I've read.

You're just gaslighting. First, progressive doesn't mean Marxist any more than conservative means white supremacist. It's that whole all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares thing. Second, there is no denying that the Nazis were ultra-nationalists. How can you with a straight face claim that their rhetoric has anything to do with any social value inherent to liberalism? Last I checked, all of the neo-nazis in this country weren't lauding Clinton in the last election, were they?

Here's an actual historian debunking your claim: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fascism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ae0db3a4ea84
Can you find a credible, credentialed historian making a claim counter to this? This guy has PhD from Stanford. It's safe to assume he knows more about World War II than either of us ever will.

Again, the left has it's share of monsters. I brought up Stalin in my post when I was pointing out the absurdity of bringing Hitler into this.You are the one that brought the Nazis into this thread. Stop dragging Hitler into this and stop trying to smear those you don't agree with by associating them with him. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest.

It's amazing how people on these forums twist words. Nothing I've said has been in defense of Facebook. I don't even use it. All I'm saying is that this law has no chance of passing constitutional muster under the current supreme court.
Sorry but I do not recognize the Washington Post as a neutral source. The fascists (including the Nazi's) were socialists; Hitler was influenced by Marx. Socialists are leftists therefore Hitler was a leftist.

I minored in history therefore I do not need somebody else to tell me what to think. Read what Marx wrote in Das Kapital about the progression from a capitalist state to a communist state and then compare the governmental agenda of a fascist government against the first stage of that progression. Samo Samo...

You can only win this argument if you can disprove Hitler was a socialist. You will fail if you try.

Progressives are Marxists. Progressives censor. Facts; not "appealing to authority.
 
The question I have re: social media websites being "public spaces" - how does this jive with targeted advertising? Maybe there aren't obvious walls blocking the public from using these services, but they're paying in more inconspicuous ways.

Seems that social media websites use the "public square" trope because it serves their own entrepreneurial interests. Those statements are 100% obsequious, imo.
 
Just to further comment on a few points.


Regarding public spaces and the right to assembly. Keep in mind physical vs virtual. A physical place where people assemble will be treated differently than a virtual environment. Facebook posts can be deleted without bloodshed. Dealing with large gatherings of people requires a little more care if you're looking to diffuse or remove people. I imagine the laws would differ between the two. You don't take a up a physical presence on a social media space.
Most of the "public space" terms used by the social media are simply marketing terms to open the invite to everyone. They still OWN the space and you are just invited to participate. 2 users or 2 billion users, it doesn't matter. I didn't pay a dime to use Facebook, they're the ones footing the bill for their servers and infrastructure. Me and everyone I know can participate but we still have to abide by their community standards or we get shown the door.

And as mentioned before, this would infringe on the rights of the platform owners. They might have their own "ethics' or corporate image that they wish to preserve. Forcing them to keep white nationalist ramblings on their pages would just continue to hurt their image and they'd be powerless to do anything about it.
Regarding "the line" changing day to day. What's socially acceptable now could change tomorrow. Much of what they censor is a reaction to the market. Youtube didn't demonetize Paul Logan's video until it went viral and caused a ton of uproar. And I believe they just started demonetizing Anti-Vax videos. They're going to watch what's trending and adapt their policies should another big thing cause an outrage.

And again as someone else mentioned. This would just set a potentially very dangerous precedent in what the government could meddle with. Maybe this term the republicans enforce no censorship but then the Dems takeover next term and flip it 180 and forcing Facebook to clamp down on everything. This could eventually go either way and backfire on the "right" badly.
 
Wow, this sounds like an awful idea. These are private companies and they are entitled to regulate speech as they see fit on their platforms. Perfect example: all of the big platforms booted Alex Jones for spreading lies and hate speech. Should they be forced to take him back? Speech like that does real harm, just look at those poor Sandy Hook parents and the harassment they suffer from the Infowars crowd. The pizzagate shooter is another great example.

This would actually make executives like Zuckerberg less accountable. They could just say "Florida made me do it" every time there is a new controversy.

Whoever wrote this bill seems to not understand that the first amendment doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want consequence free, it just means that the government can't fine or imprison you for it.

Okay, I'll bite, and the harm that was done to the Covington Catholic Kids? That is okay right? Just as long as its on the other aisle of the spectrum?

Wouldn't a law like this be in violation of the rights of a private (read: non-government) entity to decide who they do and do not want to provide service to?

The purpose is for the fair dispensation of said justice. Do to one, do to all, or don't do it. This is about the unequal treatment of users. Also, it isn't specifically in relation to Alex Jones, there have been tons of cases of them censoring certain things under the guise of "hate speech" when that isn't even a real thing.
 
Read up nut sac... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

You sound like the traditional dumbass Trumpanzee considering that all the current administration does is lie about facts...

Just to be clear, you are wrong. Snopes is also wrong. Socialism is not a left/right political idea. Socialism is an economic system. Socialism is opposed to Capitalism. But you can employ it either in a right/left political fashion. Communism is generally the left political government form that includes socialism. Fascism is generally the right political government form that includes socialism.

So were the Nazis Socialists? Yes. Were they Communists? No.

Today we use the term for a wide variety of socioeconomic ideas, but it is not inherently left or right.
 
https://www.quora.com/Is-Snopes-biased-Why-do-some-people-believe-Snopes-is-biased

The current administration doesn't lie about facts. The "trusted" news organizations (aka the fake news) have been caught numerous times lying and 92% of the time providing negative coverage. That type of one-sided coverage normally only happened with Russia's Pravda. That's why the social media sites can't also be censoring anything they don't like or our populace is going to only hear leftist socialist propaganda. The government has become less of a threat to democracy and freedom of the press than the huge social media companies and the main stream media. They all call for censorship of anything that doesn't fit their ideological agenda.

Read up nut sac... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

You sound like the traditional dumbass Trumpanzee considering that all the current administration does is lie about facts...
 
https://www.quora.com/Is-Snopes-biased-Why-do-some-people-believe-Snopes-is-biased

The current administration doesn't lie about facts. The "trusted" news organizations (aka the fake news) have been caught numerous times lying and 92% of the time providing negative coverage. That type of one-sided coverage normally only happened with Russia's Pravda. That's why the social media sites can't also be censoring anything they don't like or our populace is going to only hear leftist socialist propaganda. The government has become less of a threat to democracy and freedom of the press than the huge social media companies and the main stream media. They all call for censorship of anything that doesn't fit their ideological agenda.


Uh the current administration has provably lied more than any in the past.... By a LOT, it's not even a close comparison. News isn't fake just because it's not what you believe or agree with. Yes, all MSM is biased, but based on what you are saying, it sounds like you get your 'news' from fox entertainment. Which is by FAR one of the worst offenders of pretty much every one of your complaints about 'trusted' 'news' organizations.....

And social media is a private platform. They can set their terms of service to whatever they want to please the people actually paying them effing money, which isn't the users.... If you don't like the terms, don't use their platform, simple as that. People that get their news from FB are some of the most ignorant morons I've ever seen......
 
Uh the current administration has provably lied more than any in the past.... By a LOT, it's not even a close comparison. News isn't fake just because it's not what you believe or agree with. Yes, all MSM is biased, but based on what you are saying, it sounds like you get your 'news' from fox entertainment. Which is by FAR one of the worst offenders of pretty much every one of your complaints about 'trusted' 'news' organizations.....
Seems to this oldtimer that they are a lot more biased these days.

And social media is a private platform. They can set their terms of service to whatever they want to please the people actually paying them effing money, which isn't the users.... If you don't like the terms, don't use their platform, simple as that. People that get their news from FB are some of the most ignorant morons I've ever seen......

So, private companies can regulate their platforms as they see fit? Like, banning blacks from buying cakes?
 
Seems to this oldtimer that they are a lot more biased these days.



So, private companies can regulate their platforms as they see fit? Like, banning blacks from buying cakes?

I completely agree on your first point. It's gotten out of control on both sides and getting worse by the day. That's why I refuse to watch any major 'news' networks (Entertainment lying about being news). There are much better, more neutral sources online to use written by journalists instead of talking heads telling you what to think.


And for the second, they could try, but there are existing laws against that type of discrimination that they would be violating. But we're working on chipping away at those protections as well.... Look at the court case about the shop refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple..... People are too god damn worried about how others are living their lives, even though it has almost zero effect/impact on them.... But that goes back to the lying/fear mongering MSM.....
 
I understand that platforms needs to control their image and reputation. But its not harder than they could set up filters to prevent people from seeing political/cat videos/whatever they personally dont want to see. Without preventing others from seeing it. As it is, its a very biased selection process presided over by our social media overlords.

Point in case: It took 3 days from the time where Tommy Robinson provided clear evidence of BBCs extreme bias in their "unbiased" reporting, till he was kicked off both facebook and instagram.

Quote: “When ideas and opinions cross the line and amount to hate speech that may create an environment of intimidation and exclusion for certain groups in society – in some cases with potentially dangerous offline implications – we take action. Tommy Robinson’s Facebook page has repeatedly broken these standards, posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims. He has also behaved in ways that violate our policies around organized hate.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

Why he was banned:
 
And that describes EVERY media source, news source, company webpage, newspaper, blog post, youtube vlogs, book, magazine, the list goes on.

You are trying to single out a few businesses, that have a political ideology different than yours (assumption), and tell them that you get to control what is and isn't said in their place of business... think about that. In doing this you would be violating their freedom to practice their business as they see fit. In a way violating the businesses free speech. If you think its ok to not allow facebook to censor its users (and from what I have seen, this only happens in extreme cases. There is tons of right wing fake news all over facebook that hasn't been censored, so this perception that they are controlling the narrative and skewing it to the left is patently false), then what about Fox News, MSNBC, do you get to tell them what they can and cannot say? Seriously, this road you are proposing we go down is far darker than you think it is, regardless of which side in a political argument is "right".

Fox News is biased "entertainment" with little news value. BUT, So many people get their news there!! We need to come in and tell them what they can and cannot do stories about... the SUPRESSION is only going one way!!

MSNBC is pretty left leaning.. that's not right! (lol) We better go in there and tell them what they can say too... AND IT HAS TO BE EQUAL!! So the loud mouthed guy from fox news, we are going to put him on there for the same amount of time that that lady they have talks about whatever, is on the air for...

Facebook censored my post of made up shit?!?! OMG OMG OMG my free speech!!!@!@ *crying* As soon as I pass this law, I will show them! Their left leaning corporate masters are going to BOW to me! ONLY I can determine what they can and cannot allow to be said on their platform!!

...

I think the majority of people posting in here do not understand what Free speech protections they have and do not have, and what the 1st amendment says regarding it.

You do not have the freedom to say whatever you want.

Did that sink in? You DO NOT have the freedom to say whatever you want.

The 1st amendment says that the GOVERNMENT cannot censure your speech, or what newspapers print. That's it. Nothing about businesses, churches, what goes on in your home.

The 1st amendment does NOT say anything about any other speech.



This is the ENTIRE text of the first amendment.

So this means:
You are not free to come into my yard or my house, and say whatever you want.

You are not free to go into Walmart and say whatever you want. They have rules, and if you are a foulmouthed cretin, you can get arrested for your "speech".

You are not free to post on Facebook whatever you want. If you post offensive, obscene, porn, etc. they are going to delete your post. The 1st amendment doesn't say that you can say what you want on their platform.

In fact, trying to force those companies to NOT censor their businesses/platforms, violates the companies' rights. You would be violating the "newspapers" first amendment rights if you tried to go in and tell them WHAT to print. All the 1st Amendment says, is that the Goverment cannot tell them that they can't print something, not that they HAVE to print something.

This proposed law has it backwards...



That's complete horsehit.

Show me an arbitrary rule... ?

Show me where facebook has removed "dissenting comments", ever? Because that doesn't happen, except in your made up world where any left leaning business, always censors anything right wing.

Show me ANY OTHER BUSINESS, anywhere, ever, that follows your interpretation of this proposeed law.

Better yet, being a citizen of some other country (M76), why not start there with your thinking on how this law should be written, get it implemented in YOUR country first. Set a shining example for all the rest of the world to see! Do that before trying to fuck up ours...

oh yeah, Russia has already tried to fuck up our country... on Facebook with fake people/organizations.. succeeded to some degree.. but now Facebook is (hopefully) trying to fight back against all the fake shit.. so Russia's game plan may not be nearly as effective next time around.. What to do about it?!?! Propose a ridiculous law, tout "free speech!!" in forum posts the country over, and try to get support for the law that helps enable our game plan!

Media outlets are entirely different beasts from public forums.

Just because it's popular and accessible doesn't mean it's public. It's not the same as gathering at a park to have a discussion. A better analogy would be being invited over to someone's house or business. They can still eject you if they feel that what you're saying is harmful to their other guests. Again, the market tends to dictate what they allow.


I admit I'm a little baffled by all this.
I'm typically left leaning but here I am suggesting a more right wing approach. Keeping the government out of the matters of a private business and letting the free market dictate how this goes, and also not feeling entitled to post whatever I want on someone else's platform. It's usually the left that get accused of being entitled and that cry out for government control/intervention.. lol

Except this isn't a house we're talking about, this is a business. A business open to the public has no right to kick anyone out unless they were loitering or doing something else illegal.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the first amendment. It doesn't protect you from corporations or any other private entity. Facebook has the right to censor you or me or anyone else they wish. If you don't like it, the only remedies are anti-trust action, amending the constitution, or boycotting the platform.

I'll repeat my earlier point. If Kyle Bennett decides he doesn't like what I write, the way I use punctuation, the time of day I post, or any other reasonable or unreasonable criteria he can censor me. It's a private site, that's how it works. Facebook is not a government entity and the first amendment has no bearing on what they do.

The big platforms have some culpability in election interference, ISIS recruitment, and a host of other ills. Do you really want them to bear no responsibility for the contents on their sites? If they were sued because content was on their site that led to something tragic, they could turn around and use a law like this as defense (though this law will never hold up in the courts).

Simple solution. If you don't want a certain type of discussion on your service, make it clear that that type of discussion is not allowed in the TOS, and you're free to lock it down whenever it appears. Just make sure to lock it down regardless of what viewpoint appears.

Just to further comment on a few points.


Regarding public spaces and the right to assembly. Keep in mind physical vs virtual. A physical place where people assemble will be treated differently than a virtual environment. Facebook posts can be deleted without bloodshed. Dealing with large gatherings of people requires a little more care if you're looking to diffuse or remove people. I imagine the laws would differ between the two. You don't take a up a physical presence on a social media space.
Most of the "public space" terms used by the social media are simply marketing terms to open the invite to everyone. They still OWN the space and you are just invited to participate. 2 users or 2 billion users, it doesn't matter. I didn't pay a dime to use Facebook, they're the ones footing the bill for their servers and infrastructure. Me and everyone I know can participate but we still have to abide by their community standards or we get shown the door.

And as mentioned before, this would infringe on the rights of the platform owners. They might have their own "ethics' or corporate image that they wish to preserve. Forcing them to keep white nationalist ramblings on their pages would just continue to hurt their image and they'd be powerless to do anything about it.
Regarding "the line" changing day to day. What's socially acceptable now could change tomorrow. Much of what they censor is a reaction to the market. Youtube didn't demonetize Paul Logan's video until it went viral and caused a ton of uproar. And I believe they just started demonetizing Anti-Vax videos. They're going to watch what's trending and adapt their policies should another big thing cause an outrage.

And again as someone else mentioned. This would just set a potentially very dangerous precedent in what the government could meddle with. Maybe this term the republicans enforce no censorship but then the Dems takeover next term and flip it 180 and forcing Facebook to clamp down on everything. This could eventually go either way and backfire on the "right" badly.

See above. The point is if you allow one viewpoint, you should allow the opposing viewpoint, even if it is entirely wrong. Allowing it is very different from endorsing it or monetizing it. Also, by allowing it, it allows others to chime in and debunk the viewpoint, as is happening in this thread. That is far more useful than trying to censor a viewpoint, and helps people make more informed decisions and realize that not everything is black and white, everything is usually shades of gray. Right now, our politicians are trying to paint everything as black and white and people as either friend or foe, with no neutral ground for negotiation.
 
And social media is a private platform. They can set their terms of service to whatever they want to please the people actually paying them effing money, which isn't the users.... If you don't like the terms, don't use their platform, simple as that. People that get their news from FB are some of the most ignorant morons I've ever seen......

So, private companies can regulate their platforms as they see fit? Like, banning blacks from buying cakes?

Not even remotely the same thing.

Can you ban blacks from buying your cakes? No. Can you ban gays from buying your cakes? No. But you can refuse to make them a personalized cake if doing so gets your panties in a bunch.

Can you kick a black (or anyone) out of your establishment because they are harassing your other customers? Yes. Because they are talking about something you do not like? Yes. Example: guy comes in and starts talking about raping women, you can kick him out. Starts talking about how Trump is saving the planet. You can kick him out. Might not always be good for business, but they can do it. You make the business owner uncomfortable in (almost) any way, they can kick you out. In fact, if some super flaming gay came in and was harassing and coming onto all the straight men, even after repeated spurns, he could be kicked out. It's not because he was gay, it was because he was harassing people.

And this is how it is on facebook too. Seriously, no idea why this Florida senator thinks there is a reason for this to be a law. There's tons of shit (memes of extreme religious or political views to name some crap I see in my feed all the time) and facebook hasn't censored shit. This is a solution for a non-existent problem. And it would ultimately just cause way more problems.
 
Just to further comment on a few points.


Regarding public spaces and the right to assembly. Keep in mind physical vs virtual. A physical place where people assemble will be treated differently than a virtual environment. Facebook posts can be deleted without bloodshed. Dealing with large gatherings of people requires a little more care if you're looking to diffuse or remove people. I imagine the laws would differ between the two. You don't take a up a physical presence on a social media space.
Most of the "public space" terms used by the social media are simply marketing terms to open the invite to everyone. They still OWN the space and you are just invited to participate. 2 users or 2 billion users, it doesn't matter. I didn't pay a dime to use Facebook, they're the ones footing the bill for their servers and infrastructure. Me and everyone I know can participate but we still have to abide by their community standards or we get shown the door.

And as mentioned before, this would infringe on the rights of the platform owners. They might have their own "ethics' or corporate image that they wish to preserve. Forcing them to keep white nationalist ramblings on their pages would just continue to hurt their image and they'd be powerless to do anything about it.
Regarding "the line" changing day to day. What's socially acceptable now could change tomorrow. Much of what they censor is a reaction to the market. Youtube didn't demonetize Paul Logan's video until it went viral and caused a ton of uproar. And I believe they just started demonetizing Anti-Vax videos. They're going to watch what's trending and adapt their policies should another big thing cause an outrage.

And again as someone else mentioned. This would just set a potentially very dangerous precedent in what the government could meddle with. Maybe this term the republicans enforce no censorship but then the Dems takeover next term and flip it 180 and forcing Facebook to clamp down on everything. This could eventually go either way and backfire on the "right" badly.
I don't agree 100%.

If you own a business and it's public facing (for example a car dealership with a showroom that invites anyone from the public to walk in and look at cars, a shop owner with shelves that allows people to walk up and down the isles as in a super market/walmart/ect, a mall with open access to the stores inside, ect) there are certain rules in how you can engage with the public. For example, you cannot put up a sign that says "whites only". This is fairly obvious and you can't do this in the virtual world either. I can't say males only, i can't say 40+ only, i can't say indians only, ect ect ect. THe rules are kind of simple. You open access for everyone and only permit certain behavior and or limit certain usage.

The problem is that social media companies know this. They do not put up a sign that says "Left leaning democrats or socialists only". Doing so, even though it's mostly untested, would more than likely get them into hot water with the law. While political affiliation or thought isn't a protected class, it's pretty much a thought crime which does not lend itself to behavior. Instead they make up murky rules (community guidelines) which are not applied in a clear and concise manner across the board and use it as a hammer to hit those who they disagree with. Hence when people are talking about censorship, they are talking about this. The blocking of individuals who have ideas which are contrary to their own.

Someone before brought up the anti-vaxers but i have yet to see someone really come out and say, vaccines = autism. Typically it's more nuanced in where someone who is claimed to be an "anti-vaxer" points to thermadol (mercury compound) in certain vaccines, argues for their mercury free alternatives which do exist, and points to america having one of the most aggressive vaccine schedules for infants in comparison to many European countries (last time i checked this is true) and thought to themselves (and others) that slowing down the schedule to match other countries might just be prudent for their kids. I really don't see the harm in fact based discussion on the subject to be had. They don't even allow the discussion about how vaccine mistake payouts do occur every single year and that there is a very small but existent risk in vaccines in general.
 
Facebook admits that it censors. Why do you think the senator is doing this? Republicans get shadow-banned; Democrats don't. If it were the other way around, it would be the headlines on every newspaper in the country until the policy stopped.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-admits-it-shadow-bans-posts-pages-it-deems-false

InfoWars host Alex Jones should be the poster boy for this legislation. You don't have to like what the guy says but he shouldn't be kicked off from all social media, youtube, paypal, etc for saying it.
Republicans in the 2018 election were seeing their ads pulled, free advertisement given to their opponents without declaration of this as a campaign contribution, and were routinely shadow banned. Devin Nunes just announced a $250M lawsuit against Twitter today for this crap. Twitter will try to hide behind their safe harbor provisions while at the same time defend their policies which are in direct violation of it. Facebook will probably get a similar suit and deserves one. They can't enjoy the privileges of safeharbor if they're going to choose sides and play editor.

Not even remotely the same thing.
Seriously, no idea why this Florida senator thinks there is a reason for this to be a law. There's tons of shit (memes of extreme religious or political views to name some crap I see in my feed all the time) and facebook hasn't censored shit. This is a solution for a non-existent problem. And it would ultimately just cause way more problems.
 
Ah...now the crux appears...I was right, this is retarded US politics...nothing about free speech...but a political based campaign of FUD...keep that shote CONTIANED US of A...kthxbye
 
Holy shit! Another low IQ Trumpanzee, what a surprise.... But yes the Trump admin lies daily about everything.... Keep sticking your head in the sand, cant wait till this douche is gone in 2020...

Bro you have been here since 2004, you need to check yourself. "Attack the message and not the poster" is in the rules that you agree to by posting. We are better than this. Set an example.
 
Not even remotely the same thing.

Can you ban blacks from buying your cakes? No. Can you ban gays from buying your cakes? No. But you can refuse to make them a personalized cake if doing so gets your panties in a bunch.

A bakery did exactly that. And they were harassed (not boycotted) out of business, and all the progressives cheered it as a victory. Harassment is illegal, but the police did nothing to stop it. An illegal activity was championed because it supported the right narrative. That is the double standard we live in today.

As an FYI, the Supreme Court only sided with that one baker because they found evidence that the legal proceedings were overly hostile and biased against the baker, and did not rule that he had a right to deny personalized service. Basically, they said due process was not followed and that's why the case is invalid.
 
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the first amendment. It doesn't protect you from corporations or any other private entity. Facebook has the right to censor you or me or anyone else they wish. If you don't like it, the only remedies are anti-trust action, amending the constitution, or boycotting the platform.

I'll repeat my earlier point. If Kyle Bennett decides he doesn't like what I write, the way I use punctuation, the time of day I post, or any other reasonable or unreasonable criteria he can censor me. It's a private site, that's how it works. Facebook is not a government entity and the first amendment has no bearing on what they do.

The big platforms have some culpability in election interference, ISIS recruitment, and a host of other ills. Do you really want them to bear no responsibility for the contents on their sites? If they were sued because content was on their site that led to something tragic, they could turn around and use a law like this as defense (though this law will never hold up in the courts).
You're talking about something else. I'm not saying the first amendment protects my speech on facebook. I'm not even from the US, how would it? I'm proposing that social media has extreme power to influence people therefore their neutrality must be ensured by law if necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tsumi
like this
Sounds like they need to up their censorship game..
And, how are we going to make them do it?


No idea who Tommy Robinson is or why he gets deleted.

Discussing Hitler, who cares? Discussing something isn't the same thing as endorsing it. Show me proof of 'arbitrary metrics'.
I did, you refusing to even look at it doesn't make it go away. Tommy Robinson is a right wing activist, who recently posted an expose about the hypocrisy and underhanded tactics of the BBC (a media outlet that should be neutral by law).
And as an immediate response to that his facebook account was deleted, and all people associated with it also temporarily banned on trumped up hate speech accusations. That allegedly happened months or years before.
And in the wake of the banning all posts discussing him were deleted. I don't know if that was just temporary or are they still deleting posts.
Yes, there is no law yet compelling a business to be unbiased. Doesn't need to be.
Since your side is on the winning side of the bias, right?
Who is blaming who?? I just asked you to put your money where your mouth is...
You just suggested that if this legislation went trough you'd blame me for it because I'm endorsing it.

But do I think foreign interests would love nothing more than for my country to tear itself apart? I would be a fool not to.
The cold war ended 30 years ago with the breaking up of the USSR. Nobody would benefit from the US tearing itself apart, this is a dick measuring contest nothing more.

What's my 'moronic' narrative?? That a foreign government interfered with an election? Because that's been going on since the country was founded...
Are you referring to the British? I think they have much bigger problems now than us domestic politics.
Sure give me proof of foreign meddling with elections going back to the founding of the country. That's a much more serious accusation than facebook being biased.
 
You're talking about something else. I'm not saying the first amendment protects my speech on facebook. I'm not even from the US, how would it? I'm proposing that social media has extreme power to influence people therefore their neutrality must be ensured by law if necessary.

Who is the “neutral” body you want involved in this US politics?

This is nothing to do with free speech, some muppet is mad because Alex Jones etc. got booted...
 
I don't live in Florida and I'll try to keep this neutral. If they pass this will it cost Florida $30+ million in future court cases?
 
Read up nut sac... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

You sound like the traditional dumbass Trumpanzee considering that all the current administration does is lie about facts...
Citing a progressively biased site does not win the argument. Rather than citing some questionable "authority" you should learn to think for yourself. It is an unquestionable fact that Marx describes the transition a capitalistic state to a communist state in his book Das Kapital. The first state is socialism whereby the central government through regulation controls the privately owned "means of production". This is "precisely" the definition of a fascist government. This early socialist state will progress further into what is regarded as socialism with more and more privately run businesses being absorbed into the umbrella of the "state".

You will never understand history by learning from progressive professors and authorities. If the American Constitutional Republic is the thesis than Marxism (fascism/socialism/communism) is the antithesis. America is about individual rights while fascism/socialism/communism is about the individual submitting to the will of the collective as defined by a small cadre of elites. Today we have the progressive tech giants seeking to censor those who oppose the assimilation of American's into the progressive collective.

Read up "nut sac": https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
 
A bakery did exactly that. And they were harassed (not boycotted) out of business, and all the progressives cheered it as a victory. Harassment is illegal, but the police did nothing to stop it. An illegal activity was championed because it supported the right narrative. That is the double standard we live in today.

As an FYI, the Supreme Court only sided with that one baker because they found evidence that the legal proceedings were overly hostile and biased against the baker, and did not rule that he had a right to deny personalized service. Basically, they said due process was not followed and that's why the case is invalid.
Lol. I like how it has to get to the highest court in the land to decide that shit wasn't impartial in legal proceedings up until that part and then also pretend that this same bullshit doesn't affect countless of other government and industry services system wide.
 
Back
Top