Florida Introduces "Stop Social Media Censorship Act"

Derangel said:
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?
Click to expand...
If you modify the content on a service like Twitter (ie Censorship of non-criminal activity) normally you'd be deamed a publisher and become responsible for all the content. As such you'd be liable (npi) for slander done by your users. If you're a platform and not a publisher, users are responsible and you can't censor.

Silicon Valley Companies have been exempted though inaction and law from committing to either one. As such they've been censoring without assuming accountability for slander promoted on their sites.

There is basically a ready made solution for censorship and/or social media mobs who start spreading exaggerations and falsehoods to destroy people. You're not suppose to have both.
 
Last edited:
If you want to know there is different treatment, take a look at how people went after Gab for the US Synagogue Shooter and didn't say boo about Facebook live streaming the NZ Mosque Shooter
 
Factum said:
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...
Click to expand...
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still better than doing wrong things for right reasons.And like it or not, forcing lunatics like alex jones underground only makes them stronger, and insulated from debunkers. You see you're already biased becuse you think alex jones is rightly silenced. No, he should be put on a pedestal where everyone can debunk his stupid conspiracies.

I don't want to involve anyone in US politics, if you read my other posts I explained that I wish the internet was beyond the jurisdiction of any one nation. It should be treated as neutral waters, regardless of where the servers hosting a post are physically located. Because that is completely irrelevant.With cloud mirroring services you can't even pinpoint it.
 
M76 said:
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still better than doing wrong things for right reasons.And like it or not, ridiculing lunatics like alex jones is just as important forcing them underground only makes them stronger, and insulated from debunkers.

I don't want to involve anyone in US politics, if you read my other posts I explained that I wish the internet was beyond the jurisdiction of any one nation. It should be treated as neutral waters, regardless of where the servers hosting a post are physically located. Because that is completely irrelevant.With cloud mirroring services you can't even pinpoint it.
Click to expand...

This IS US politics, hidden under the guise of free speech.

Some Republicans sounds sour grapes over that a private platform doen't just accpet FUD....kinda like when US offficals get surprised over the EU press, when FUD just doesn't cut it like in the US:


This has ALL THE STENCH of internal US politics pollutiing the surroundings...I am not falling for it...no one bit.
 
Factum said:
This IS US politics, hidden under the guise of free speech.

Some Republicans sounds sour grapes over that a private platform doen't just accpet FUD....kinda like when US offficals get surprised over the EU press, when FUD just doesn't cut it like in the US:


This has ALL THE STENCH of internal US politics pollutiing the surroundings...I am not falling for it...no one bit.
Click to expand...

When you have strangleholds on the platforms used, virtual monopolies based on the lack of competitors and you have what little bit of competition being denied a chance to exist, then you need laws to protect them and to maintain their ability to exist.

If you have no idea what i'm talking about:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/...eplatforming-return-godaddy-paypal-stripe-ban
https://skytideseo.com/news/subscribestar-website-gets-shutdown-by-paypal-stripe/
this is censorship. it should not be allowed.
 
God whale said:
When you have strangleholds on the platforms used, virtual monopolies based on the lack of competitors and you have what little bit of competition being denied a chance to exist, then you need laws to protect them and to maintain their ability to exist.

If you have no idea what i'm talking about:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/...eplatforming-return-godaddy-paypal-stripe-ban
https://skytideseo.com/news/subscribestar-website-gets-shutdown-by-paypal-stripe/
this is censorship. it should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

Private platform….you don't like..make your own and let the users decide.
Don't pretend this is NOT about US politics!
 
Factum said:
Private platform….you don't like..make your own and let the users decide.
Don't pretend this is NOT about US politics!
Click to expand...

Laws are political. Laws can and do change with time to changing circumstances, they are not set in stone. Do not pretend that the "because private company" argument will immediately make any attempt to regulate private companies invalid.
 
Tsumi said:
Laws are political. Laws can and do change with time to changing circumstances, they are not set in stone. Do not pretend that the "because private company" argument will immediately make any attempt to regulate private companies invalid.
Click to expand...

Nice fallacy...got more?

The fallacies/lies being used to defend this partisan political move is mindboggling...you guys do know that the FUD going on in US politics doesn’t work against the rest of the world, right?
 
Factum said:
Nice fallacy...got more?

The fallacies/lies being used to defend this partisan political move is mindboggling...you guys do know that the FUD going on in US politics doesn’t work against the rest of the world, right?
Click to expand...

Just because you claim your opinion do be fact does not make it a fact. And an opinion it is, regardless of how right you think you are.
 
Tsumi said:
Just because you claim your opinion do be fact does not make it a fact. And an opinion it is, regardless of how right you think you are.
Click to expand...

So you got nothing...keep your internal political agenda to your self...I don't want to be part of that FUD.
 
Factum said:
Private platform….you don't like..make your own and let the users decide.
Don't pretend this is NOT about US politics!
Click to expand...
I am danish, and its the same shit here. Censorship and deplatforming of everything that dorsnt support the sjw stupidity. Nothing to do with us policy at all.
 
Factum said:
So you got nothing...keep your internal political agenda to your self...I don't want to be part of that FUD.
Click to expand...

Everything was already hashed out in this thread, your political bias prevents you from seeing any counter argument as legitimate. That is the very definition of a closed mind. I can repeat myself and go one step further though, maybe you'll be willing to open your mind a bit.

Both the Oregon and Washington courts have essentially said that if you offer a service, you must offer that service equally to everyone. This is in relation to a personalized wedding cake and a personalized floral arrangement, both services provided by private businesses, both for gay/lesbian couples. Both businesses have cited religious rights as their reason for refusal, while the plaintiffs have claimed sexual orientation discrimination.

Under your reasoning, the businesses shouldn't even need to cite anything for their refusal to provide service, because it is their right to refuse service. On the other hand, the courts are saying that if a service is provided, everyone must have equal opportunity to access said service. So why would this not extend to Google, Facebook, and the like? If Facebook allowed religious discussions, I should have every right to post about how superior Christianity is and how inferior and backwards every other religion is. As long as I do not directly call for violence or any other illegal activities, it should be allowed, no matter how insulting I am to the other religions, and nothing should be deleted because "moderation." That is currently NOT the case as Facebook can and does delete anything it considers not politically correct, if brought to the attention of moderators.

I don't particularly care for the political motivations behind this law. What I do care about is that strict guidelines need to be set on how public forums are used to disseminate information and discussions are held. A wrong, or just politically incorrect, viewpoint should not be deleted because a moderator decided they didn't like what the person had to say. For example, the TOS says that "No personal attacks are allowed," so comments like "Blah blah is a dumbass" should be deleted. However, I don't recall seeing a rule in the TOS stating that disagreements with Kyle are not allowed, so I am free to say "Kyle's thoughts on AMD are stupid and wrong and here's why," and that comment should not be deleted because there was no violation of TOS, regardless of how any moderator or admin feels about someone disagreeing with Kyle. That is what I hope a law like this accomplishes, though it should be international law rather than a state law.

For platforms like Youtube, there is a clear distinction between censorship and demonetization. Demonetization simply means no advertisers want to advertise on your video, and Youtube is not obligated to force advertisers to advertise. Deleting videos is censorship, unless the video is of an illegal activity or promotes illegal activity.
 
So many words to cover up the fact that this is a POLITICAL BIASED CAMPAGIN...that tries to ditacte how private platforms run their platform.

What is next...HardOCP not allowed to moderate posts or ban users?

Because this is what you are trying to say in order to defend the FUD...
 
To clarify:
You are saying this is invalid?

https://hardforum.com/threads/the-h-ard-forum-rules.760666/

(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS, NO TROLLING. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm, this includes personal attacks in signatures. NO POLITICAL DISCUSSION OUTSIDE OF THE SOAPBOX SUBFORUM. http://hardforum.com/account/upgrades

(2) No OFF-TOPIC posting will be allowed with the exception of the General Mayhem sub-forum area. There are multiple sub-forums as well that are subscription-access only. You can buy a subscription at this link. http://hardforum.com/account/upgrades

(3) No THREAD HIJACKING. Start another thread if you have a different topic.

(4) No THREAD Crapping

(5) No SPAMMING. Any such messages will be removed at the discretion of either a forum moderator or administrator.

(6) You must have a valid E-MAIL ACCOUNT where you can be reached by a forum moderator or administrator. Email accounts must be updated in your account when a change is required.

(7) No CURSING (or any facsimile thereof including but not limited to changing one letter in a word for using symbols instead of letters) in the thread title. It is permitted in the thread body, but please refrain from using excessive profanity dammit.

(8) No BOMBING forums or threads with pointless posts.

(9) No SHOUTING (Posting in all capital letters) It’s hard to read and just plain rude and annoying.

(10) No linking or posting of PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL except password protected subscription areas where it is appropriate.

(11) Do not post PERSONAL INFORMATION (i.e. addresses, phone numbers, passwords, personal identification numbers, images) or any other information considered private without the express permission of the individual. You must respect the privacy of other members. [H]ard|Forum has addressed privacy concerns by allowing users to set-up their accounts so that e-mail addresses may not be displayed to other users, but rather moderators and administrators only.

(12) Do not IMPERSONATE other individuals or falsely represent yourself.

(13) POST to the forum that is most appropriate for the topic being presented. Threads incorrectly placed will be moved or locked.

(14) Do not post MATERIAL where you do not have permission to distribute it electronically or otherwise. This includes posting images directly from a website (Bandwidth Theft) Images are to be hosted personally or by a third party host.

(15) Observe all COPYRIGHT LAWS, TOS's and NDA's when posting copyrighted material. If the material belongs to someone else, credit the original author. Do not post messages that violate Federal, State, or Local laws which include, but are not limited to, anything that violates a copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, or is bound by NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement).

(16) No BUYING, TRADING, or SELLING anywhere with the exception of the For Sale / Trade forum. The FS/T forum has its own set of specific rules and has a required 100 post minimum to participate. WARNING: Do not spam the forums to reach the required minimum, your posts will be deleted or your account banned. Please read their rules before posting in that forum. No PRICE CHECKS allowed except in General Mayhem. [H]ard|Forum is NOT RESPONSIBLE for any loss due to any sale or exchange of any item in the For Sale / Trade forum.

(17) Posting is to be in ENGLISH only. Non-English posts will be locked or removed.

(18) You will not discuss, suggest, engage, or encourage any ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Links provided to locations that deal with any such activity are also expressly forbidden.

(19) ADVERTISING, site pimping, contests or any type of business promotion is not permitted. Soliciting for fraternal organizations, humanitarian causes or personal rewards is prohibited unless approved prior to posting.

(20) Do not abuse BB CODE. It is provided as a benefit to you and its usage can be revoked.

(21) Each Hard|Forum member is limited to one ACCOUNT/ALIAS, unless otherwise authorized by a Hard|Forum Administrator. Protect your password and your account. You are responsible for your account regardless of compromised or stolen passwords.

(22) No active links, graphics, code, profanity or advertising allowed in the SIGNATURE. Signature is limited to 5 lines total at no more than a maximum 500 characters.

(23) Link shorteners of any kind are not allowed and an immediate bannable offense.

(24) You must follow forum MODERATORS' and ADMINISTRATORS' directions. You are bound to follow their directions and instructions.

(25) Do not put your signature or other redundant phrases in the closing body of your post. A signature section is supplied for that usage should you wish to populate it. No one wants to see your name or anything else on your posts multiple times as it is annoying.

(26) PRICE CHECKS are not allowed anywhere on the forums with the exception of the subscribed access General Mayhem forum.

(27) REFERRAL or COMMISSION type links are not allowed in our forums.

(28) Thread NECRO-ING is not allowed unless specific to the old thread and necessary. Mods will determine what is necro-ing and what is not.

(29) Use of SPECIAL CHARACTERS that break with traditional English and cause graphical anomalies will be grounds for an immediate permanent ban.

(30) All avatars must be SAFE FOR WORK!

(31) New accounts must have a minimum number of post to use the PM/Conversation system. FSFT drive-by fraudsters are the reason for this.


MORE FOR YOUR INFORMATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


[H]ard|Forum utilizes Xenforo's WARNING system. If you break a rule, you will receive a warning. Warning points are cumulative and last for a month. If three points overlap each other in those 30 days your account will be temporary banned till the oldest warning expires. Warnings expire after 30 days but remain part of your permanent record if that warning was assigned a point(s) to begin with. Only you and the mod/admin team can see the warnings in your profile.

If you receive a warning, your notification will state why. Warnings are based on the forum rules which are subject to change without notice. It is your responsibility to periodically review the rules and remain in compliance with them. Complaining or whining or throwing a temper tantrum about getting a warning, will likely result in you being banned from the forum for a time period totally up to the discretion of the mod or admin you are complaining to.

A warning isn't a huge deal, it just means you broke the rules or did something that was deemed worthy of being warned about by a mod or admin. Learn from it, don't do it again, and all will be fine. The #1 way for established members to be permabanned is by taking up too much administrative overhead by wanting to argue or discuss at length a warning. We simply do not have the time to manage with such granularity.

Registering a new account during a temp ban will result in both accounts being permabanned.

Remember that this is a privately owned and operated forum. The first amendment/freedom of speech does not apply here.

Breaking any of the above listed forum rules can result in the loss of posting privileges and possible loss of your forum account. [H]ard|Forum also reserves the right to ban any user, at any time, and for any reason.

Moderators and Administrators frequently review forum messages for those that are in violation of [H]ard|Forum rules. Any messages found to be in violation will be deleted without warning or explanation.

[H]ard|Forum reserves the right to ban any member or limit access to open forums or subscriptions forums at any time without prior notification and without explanation. Also HardForum reserves the right to edit, reprint, distribute, or delete any posting for any reason and without prior notification or explanation to the author.

All messages posted become the property of [H]ard|Forum.

[H]ard|Forum and its representatives will not be held liable for the result of the usage of any information provided in the [H]ard|Forum, and disclaim all liability resulting in the use of the posted information.

[H]ard|Forum takes no responsibility for the content of any of the messages posted in the [H]ard|Forum or of the authenticity of its authors.

All opinions and views expressed in the [H]ard|Forum are solely those of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of [H]ard|Forum, KB Networks, Inc. or its representatives.

[H]ard|Forum reserves the right to change the aforementioned rules at any time without warning or notice.

It is the responsibility of the forum member to check this page on a regular basis for any revisions in [H]ard|Forum rules before making any posts to the forum.

By posting to the [H]ard|Forum, you agree to abide by the above rules and terms.
Click to expand...
 
The right wingers in this country have lost their fucking minds.
You folks need to stop this lunacy, you voted for this, you are literally installing fascism.
 
The moderators here can lock threads, delete posts etc.. for pretty much any reason they see fit. If they feel certain conversations or behaviors are detrimental to the online community they created or to their business image, they can censor how they like. Would you be in favor of the mods here having zero authority to lock any threads unless it was only due to threats of violence?
 
Factum said:
This IS US politics, hidden under the guise of free speech.

Some Republicans sounds sour grapes over that a private platform doen't just accpet FUD....kinda like when US offficals get surprised over the EU press, when FUD just doesn't cut it like in the US:


This has ALL THE STENCH of internal US politics pollutiing the surroundings...I am not falling for it...no one bit.
Click to expand...


I suppose you think your post makes sense, wtf is FUD? and try constructing an actual sentence.

Do you really care that an ambassador to the Netherlands said something stupid during a symposium in 2015?

And you find it correct to link this to what is being proposed by the legislature of Florida?

You imagine that one has a bearing on the other?
 
Last edited:
Factum said:


I can exlain it to you...but I cannot understand it for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fud
​
Click to expand...

I'm 59 and I have never in my life heard this term. Sounds like made up bullshit to me. I've heard the phrase Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, but never the acronym FUD. To my knowledge this is a little used acronym, or one used by very narrow groups of people.

Oh and BTW, I'm pretty accomplished when it comes to understanding concepts. I've had a great amount of experience in it.

On a side note, I am thinking that you are not a native English speaker. If that is true I would like to apologize for criticizing your comments regards your sentence structure, spelling, etc..
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
I'm 59 and I have never in my life heard this term. Sounds like made up bullshit to me. I've heard the phrase Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, but never the acronym FUD. To my knowledge this is a little used acronym, or one used by very narrow groups of people.

Oh and BTW, I'm pretty accomplished when it comes to understanding concepts. I've had a great amount of experience in it.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is on you, not me /shrugs
Wiki has had the definition up since 2004...

On a side note, I am thinking that you are not a native English speaker. If that is true I would like to apologia for criticizing your comments.
Click to expand...

I speak and write 5 languages, but English is not my native tounge nope...any more irrelevant static you would like to add?
 
Tsumi said:
...Both the Oregon and Washington courts have essentially said that if you offer a service, you must offer that service equally to everyone. This is in relation to a personalized wedding cake and a personalized floral arrangement, both services provided by private businesses, both for gay/lesbian couples. Both businesses have cited religious rights as their reason for refusal, while the plaintiffs have claimed sexual orientation discrimination.

Under your reasoning, the businesses shouldn't even need to cite anything for their refusal to provide service, because it is their right to refuse service. On the other hand, the courts are saying that if a service is provided, everyone must have equal opportunity to access said service. So why would this not extend to Google, Facebook, and the like? If Facebook allowed religious discussions, I should have every right to post about how superior Christianity is and how inferior and backwards every other religion is. As long as I do not directly call for violence or any other illegal activities, it should be allowed, no matter how insulting I am to the other religions, and nothing should be deleted because "moderation." That is currently NOT the case as Facebook can and does delete anything it considers not politically correct, if brought to the attention of moderators.
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges.

Censoring content is not the same thing as refusing service.

Social Media platforms have a Terms of Service legal agreement, that you must agree to when opting-in to use their service. A business selling cakes doesn't have a terms of service legal agreement.

Not the same thing at all.

Tsumi said:
I don't particularly care for the political motivations behind this law. What I do care about is that strict guidelines need to be set on how public forums are used to disseminate information and discussions are held. A wrong, or just politically incorrect, viewpoint should not be deleted because a moderator decided they didn't like what the person had to say...That is what I hope a law like this accomplishes, though it should be international law rather than a state law..
Click to expand...

This will never fly...

And ultimately, bots would just take over (they can't block our shitspeech anymore!! YAY!), tons of shit posts arguing amongst themselves, until the platform dies.

Thie would be like telling Fox News, MSBNC, BBC, that they can't censor (refuse to air) content that doesn't follow their supported narrative/entertainment/trash opinions. You think any of them would go along with that? Hell no...

This is such a horrible idea, the repercussions of allowing the Government to tell them that they have to let people post whatever they want, is in itself a violation of the constitution.
"But we can make clearly defined rules!!.."
You think it is biased now? Who gets to decide these "rules"??? YOU? ME? Some jackass politician?? Screw that...
 
Factum said:
Private platform….you don't like..make your own and let the users decide.
Don't pretend this is NOT about US politics!
Click to expand...
I just gave examples of private platforms who created alternatives and were basically shut down by other companies refusing to do business with them.
So not only do you have to create your own platform (youtube/twitter alternative), but you have to create your own registrar (so companies like godaddy don't decide to kick you off), your own payment processor (so paypal doesn't shut you down). Do you realize what kind of barrier to entry this imposes on alternatives, when if you boil it down to it, it comes down to politically active companies conspiring to keep alternatives out of the market?
Capitalism works on the free market example. Companies should not be in the habit of denying their services based on politics, ever. What you're creating has far reaching implications which will come back to bite you hard. The pendulum swings back and forth.
 
Factum said:
So many words to cover up the fact that this is a POLITICAL BIASED CAMPAGIN...that tries to ditacte how private platforms run their platform.

What is next...HardOCP not allowed to moderate posts or ban users?

Because this is what you are trying to say in order to defend the FUD...
Click to expand...

Factum said:
To clarify:
You are saying this is invalid?

https://hardforum.com/threads/the-h-ard-forum-rules.760666/
Click to expand...

I can tell you did not read a single word of my post before posting your biased political drivel. If you had actually bothered to read, you would know that is not what I said.

GoodBoy said:
Apples and Oranges.

Censoring content is not the same thing as refusing service.

Social Media platforms have a Terms of Service legal agreement, that you must agree to when opting-in to use their service. A business selling cakes doesn't have a terms of service legal agreement.

Not the same thing at all.



This will never fly...

And ultimately, bots would just take over (they can't block our shitspeech anymore!! YAY!), tons of shit posts arguing amongst themselves, until the platform dies.

Thie would be like telling Fox News, MSBNC, BBC, that they can't censor (refuse to air) content that doesn't follow their supported narrative/entertainment/trash opinions. You think any of them would go along with that? Hell no...

This is such a horrible idea, the repercussions of allowing the Government to tell them that they have to let people post whatever they want, is in itself a violation of the constitution.
"But we can make clearly defined rules!!.."
You think it is biased now? Who gets to decide these "rules"??? YOU? ME? Some jackass politician?? Screw that...
Click to expand...

How is deleting content on a service that is designed to allow people to provide content not denial of service?

And once again, you did not read what I posted, at all. I am not asking for every forum to abide by the same rules. I am asking for a set of solid, clear cut rules that do not allow moderators to make arbitrary decisions. If you don't want religious discussions on your platform, make it clear in your TOS, and ban/delete it the moment it pops up. But if you do allow religious discussions, don't go deleting posts on the merits of radical Islam just because you disagree with radical Islam and think it is detrimental to your platform.

Also, don't think I forgot that you tried to use "Denying personalized cake" as one of your justifications why this is shouldn't pass. I have yet to see you address that, but of course you wouldn't because it doesn't fit your narrative, right?
 
Last edited:
These companies that are boycotting the alternative startups are just reacting to the market. My guess is that extreme right wing views aren't very profitable and are considered a risk. I mentioned earlier that they also want to preserve their own corporate image, this includes the social media platforms and any company that does business with them.
 
Majinhoju said:
These companies that are boycotting the alternative startups are just reacting to the market. My guess is that extreme right wing views aren't very profitable and are considered a risk. I mentioned earlier that they also want to preserve their own corporate image, this includes the social media platforms and any company that does business with them.
Click to expand...
Money is a risk? Huh. Weird way to do business. Why the hell does a internet registrar care who uses their service as long as it's legal or not? Why does a payment processor care who uses their services as long as it's within the confines of the law?
It's not profitable to take money? So really weird to me. To me if you're in the business of making money by providing a service, i wouldn't care at all as long as it's legal. It would be a really stupid business decision to start picking winners and losers and conspire to keep the losers out of the market. Go down that road and alternatives that don't pick winners and losers will appear and will eat your market share.
 
Factum said:
Your ignorance is on you, not me /shrugs
Wiki has had the definition up since 2004...



I speak and write 5 languages, but English is not my native tounge nope...any more irrelevant static you would like to add?
Click to expand...


Oh, well then, let's get started.

Let's let the FUD thing go, it's immaterial that some ass thought it smart to try and claim some sort of geek credit, for creating a wiki page, for an acronym that no one in the real world uses.
If you disagree that's fine with me, it has no bearing on the topic.

Now back to the topic, please explain why you believe that the video you linked has anything to do with the Florida State Legislature's proposed law from this thread's article.

I ask because it would seem that your only point, is that you believe that this proposed law is all about political maneuvering between the parties.

If you have been following, I oppose this proposal and my opposition has nothing at all to do with said political struggle. I simply do not believe that the US Government, or any State Government, has the authority to decide what individuals or businesses say, or how they may set controls on their own platforms.

What I will not do is get into a discussion on political maneuvering or party issues.
 
God whale said:
Money is a risk? Huh. Weird way to do business. Why the hell does a internet registrar care who uses their service as long as it's legal or not? Why does a payment processor care who uses their services as long as it's within the confines of the law?
It's not profitable to take money? So really weird to me. To me if you're in the business of making money by providing a service, i wouldn't care at all as long as it's legal. It would be a really stupid business decision to start picking winners and losers and conspire to keep the losers out of the market. Go down that road and alternatives that don't pick winners and losers will appear and will eat your market share.
Click to expand...

Again, it's reacting to the market. The current market is left leaning and quick to boycott (which I'm sure you agree with). Would you do business with a company knowing that boycott could extend to you? Or would you pass on that one sale and not have any of your existing customers pull their business from you? Not every sale is a good business decision.


I'm not fully convinced that all these companies are left wing entities, but more that they are simply reacting to the left wing market. From what I've seen, left wing boycotts have had a lot more impact than right wing boycotts.
 
mullet said:
Hate Speech doesn't exist!

This is what the snow flake cry babies use to try and control what people say.

I was hoping this social media outrage/offended over everything was just a fad that would eventually blow over after a while but I guess not.

I wish I could gather up all the millennials and drop them off in the WWII era and watch them cry themselves to sleep every night. Good grief.
Click to expand...
The era you didn't experience?
Yeah cool story
 
Majinhoju said:
Again, it's reacting to the market. The current market is left leaning and quick to boycott (which I'm sure you agree with). Would you do business with a company knowing that boycott could extend to you? Or would you pass on that one sale and not have any of your existing customers pull their business from you? Not every sale is a good business decision.


I'm not fully convinced that all these companies are left wing entities, but more that they are simply reacting to the left wing market. From what I've seen, left wing boycotts have had a lot more impact than right wing boycotts.
Click to expand...
I just don't see the boycotts that affect companies like paypal that have something like 83-90% of the market share. all a company has to do is maintain neutrality and allow all legal transactions to occur without applying politics to their business decisions.
They are forcing competitors to come out of the woodwork. They are forcing people to take a stance on where they draw the line and it will have lasting impressions going forward. You want to be a startup and have a choice to decide to partner with a company that's known to kick people off it's services due to political reasons or one that maintains neutrality? There's a obvious risk assessment that would lean towards the one that stable instead of the one that's pandering to a group.

I just would summarize and say your analysis is deeply flawed. The market is only green leaning. Investors like profits, they dislike activism in businesses.

Can't wait until they do this shit with banks and financial institutions.
 
Tsumi said:
... I am not asking for every forum to abide by the same rules. I am asking for a set of solid, clear cut rules that do not allow moderators to make arbitrary decisions. If you don't want religious discussions on your platform, make it clear in your TOS, and ban/delete it the moment it pops up. But if you do allow religious discussions, don't go deleting posts on the merits of radical Islam just because you disagree with radical Islam and think it is detrimental to your platform.
Click to expand...

This is the most reasonable presentation of the general idea behind the proposed Florida law I've seen posted here.

Seems pretty logical, I wouldn't have anything against a forum doing the above.

But I don't see where a law is needed for this? This is already how a TOS works. So if you feel like something was removed that did not violate the TOS, you already have legal remedies for such an event.

Tsumi said:
Also, don't think I forgot that you tried to use "Denying personalized cake" as one of your justifications why this is shouldn't pass. I have yet to see you address that, but of course you wouldn't because it doesn't fit your narrative, right?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should re-read my post. That was an example of the existing precedents revolving around these various ["i can deny" or "i can't deny" services/whatever to my customers] type of arguments that have come up in recent years.

As far as that example goes and some SJW's post about how it drove them out of business (and how wrong that was), that's the free market at work.

Ultimately it was decided by the supreme court that a person couldn't be compelled to make "art" that went against their beliefs. Because the art is a creative act the person creates from within themselves. The fact that the business effectively was discriminating against gays is what drove him out of business. So be it. He shouldn't have made such a fuss about it, or had an employee who didn't have any predjudices against gays do the art instead of him himself doing it. No fuss, he doesn't have to violate a religious predjudice (because a predjudice is what it was, the source of which being religion doesn't justify it imho), and he would still be in business today. The free market decided that companies fate and I'm completely fine with that, he can take his crap elsewhere.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
The era you didn't experience?
Yeah cool story
Click to expand...


Wouldn't need to have experienced it first hand to know that there is a vast difference in the times.

WWII, not even 15 years following WWI, and equally as important to his statement, immediately following The Great Depression. A time when a pair of shoes for a school aged child was a big thing and not because he wasn't getting the latest Air Jordans.
 
GoodBoy said:
This is the most reasonable presentation of the general idea behind the proposed Florida law I've seen posted here.

Seems pretty logical, I wouldn't have anything against a forum doing the above.

But I don't see where a law is needed for this? This is already how a TOS works. So if you feel like something was removed that did not violate the TOS, you already have legal remedies for such an event.



Maybe you should re-read my post. That was an example of the existing precedents revolving around these various ["i can deny" or "i can't deny" services/whatever to my customers] type of arguments that have come up in recent years.

As far as that example goes and some SJW's post about how it drove them out of business (and how wrong that was), that's the free market at work.

Ultimately it was decided by the supreme court that a person couldn't be compelled to make "art" that went against their beliefs. Because the art is a creative act the person creates from within themselves. The fact that the business effectively was discriminating against gays is what drove him out of business. So be it. He shouldn't have made such a fuss about it, or had an employee who didn't have any predjudices against gays do the art instead of him himself doing it. No fuss, he doesn't have to violate a religious predjudice (because a predjudice is what it was, the source of which being religion doesn't justify it imho), and he would still be in business today. The free market decided that companies fate and I'm completely fine with that, he can take his crap elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The law is being proposed because most TOS are so ambiguously worded that it literally gives moderators and admins power to do whatever they want on their platform. In addition to that, moderators continuously abuse the ambiguity of the TOS to push their political agenda on large platforms like Facebook.

Reread the Supreme Court decision. They said no such thing. They said that because the proceedings against the Chicago bakery were overly hostile, the case was thrown out. Essentially, it was a mistrial. They did NOT state that a business has the right to refuse service. The Oregon bakery case and the Washington florist case are still pending, with both of the highest courts in those states stating that they cannot refuse service, and the Supreme Court has made no indication that they will be hearing those cases.
 
M76 said:
....And like it or not, forcing lunatics like alex jones underground only makes them stronger, and insulated from debunkers...
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with you for multiple reasons.

1) I have no idea who alex jones is, your point that it makes them stronger seems unlikely and highly debatable.

2) Allowing shitstains to fester on a social media platform has negative consequences for said platform. Them protecting their business by denying someone a platform is within their rights.
 
GoodBoy said:
I would have to disagree with you for multiple reasons.

1) I have no idea who alex jones is, your point that it makes them stronger seems unlikely and highly debatable.

2) Allowing shitstains to fester on a social media platform has negative consequences for said platform. Them protecting their business by denying someone a platform is within their rights.
Click to expand...
But other users of the platform arent forced to view his postings. So why stop those who voluntarily wants to read/discuss these matters?
 
Tsumi said:
The law is being proposed because most TOS are so ambiguously worded that it literally gives moderators and admins power to do whatever they want on their platform. In addition to that, moderators continuously abuse the ambiguity of the TOS to push their political agenda on large platforms like Facebook.
Click to expand...

This sounds like something you should take up with facebook. I can't see a "law" being the correct fix to the percieved issue... which I still contend is basically non-existent. How many right-wing idiotic memes do I have to see on my damn facebook feed to prove that you are grossly overblowing any "tilting" of the censor stamp's application...

Tsumi said:
Reread the Supreme Court decision. They said no such thing. They said that because the proceedings against the Chicago bakery were overly hostile, the case was thrown out. Essentially, it was a mistrial. They did NOT state that a business has the right to refuse service. The Oregon bakery case and the Washington florist case are still pending, with both of the highest courts in those states stating that they cannot refuse service, and the Supreme Court has made no indication that they will be hearing those cases.
Click to expand...

That was the technical reason they sided with the baker yes. You will have to point out how this applies to the current discussion, or point out something else about this or something I said about it and how it does apply to the current discussion.
 
Skyblue said:
But other users of the platform arent forced to view his postings. So why stop those who voluntarily wants to read/discuss these matters?
Click to expand...


Because the people that actually pay FB money care, and don't want their ads associated with a nut like AJ..... So FB can either ban AJ for violating their TOS, or lose ad revenue. Guess which one they are going to pick, and have every right to do so.
 
Last edited:
GoodBoy said:
This sounds like something you should take up with facebook. I can't see a "law" being the correct fix to the percieved issue... which I still contend is basically non-existent. How many right-wing idiotic memes do I have to see on my damn facebook feed to prove that you are grossly overblowing any "tilting" of the censor stamp's application...
Click to expand...

This. I've seen no evidence that Facebook is actively censoring tons of right wing content. My feed, like yours, also comes up with lots of right wing memes from my right leaning friends. I've even poked through some conservative pages and seen tons and tons of pro-gun, pro trump, anti liberal, anti muslim etc.. etc.. content that does not get censored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top