Florida Introduces "Stop Social Media Censorship Act"

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Mar 17, 2019.

  1. EODetroit

    EODetroit [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,486
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Assuming this passes into law, which it won't, and then assuming it passes a first amendment challenge, which it won't, all it will mean is that Facebook won't offer its services to anyone residing in Florida. Same for every other social media platform.
     
    Tweak42 likes this.
  2. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,558
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    I hope this passes and becomes the standard nationwide.
     
  3. MarkVI

    MarkVI Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    208
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    I couldn't agree more that these companies have out-sized, government-like influence. The remedy is really simple and has nothing to do with regulating their speech: anti-trust law. If they're too big, they need to be broken up. Facebook and Google are the Standard Oil of the 21st century.
     
    Skyblue likes this.
  4. MarkVI

    MarkVI Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    208
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    It didn't even occur to me that people rely on these platforms for news because I don't use them that way. They are inherently unreliable, just as Wikipedia is. It's so easy (and dangerous) to assume that everyone else sees the world through the same lens.

    Maybe the real answer is a more educated public. We haven't adapted to the changing reality. For those of us old enough to remember library catalogs and the like, it used to be hard to find information, but it was difficult to publish bad information so most (but not all) of what you found was credible. The critical skill was finding the source in the first place. Now, it's incredibly easy to disseminate information, and the more essential skill is being able to discriminate between reliable and unreliable data. We really should be teaching middle and high school students these basic skills. Nobody who has any basic research skills trusts Wikipedia, Facebook, and the like implicitly. With tertiary sources one must always trace it back to a more reliable source before taking it as the truth.

    Facebook is only as powerful as we choose to let them be. They don't hold the key to any necessary resource or unique technology.
     
    $trapped and toddw like this.
  5. iamjanco

    iamjanco Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    442
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    I say shut it down. Permanently. Cell phones will get a lot cheaper, and fewer people will fall off of Taft Point.
     
  6. GoodBoy

    GoodBoy [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,338
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Who is forcing the citizens of Denmark to use facebook? Meet your buddies in person, have all the free speech you want.

    Lol.. social media are to the Left.. have you watched the shitshow that is fox news? Not only heavily to the right, but full of lies.

    Censor them fucktards.

    Yeah. So Kyle Bennett, no more banning fucktards from the forums.. "YOU VIOLATED MY FREE SPEECH!!!"

    Fuck that. The internet/social media is a wasteland of mostly trash. If Facebook/[H] deletes you post because you are a toxic piece of filth, more power to them. It's Their businesses. You are free to NOT use them. You are not free to tell them to let you whine about whateverYouAareThrowingaFitAboutToday in their place of business. Comparing it to 1984... not even remotely the same thing. Who is telling you what to think? Oh yeah, you're tell each other... /idiots
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019
    $trapped likes this.
  7. Darkbreeze

    Darkbreeze n00b

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    That's great. I guess they are not familiar with the idea that you sign a TOS when you join a site like that, or most sites actually. Or that they site actually, realistically, BELONGS to somebody, and that legally they have the right to do what they want with it. This kind of legislation is just one step away from what they have in China and Russia where they actually can TELL you what you can have or not have, allow or not allow. Screw that. I'd rather see ten pus filled hate mongering posts get taken down and one innocent one get caught up by mistake than allow the cesspool to simply fester. The administration that even suggested that ought to have all it's legal members disbarred and the entire administration recalled if they actually support simply allowing anybody to do anything they want with no recourse for keeping things at at least a somewhat sane(er) level.

    Senseless. No wonder our country is going to hell. It's not immigrants, it's universally witless idiots like that. Makes you wonder if they also wear floppy white hoods during get togethers on the weekends to even suggest that kind of drivel. And yeah, I'm white.
     
    $trapped and Skyblue like this.
  8. CaptNumbNutz

    CaptNumbNutz Bulls[H]it Master

    Messages:
    19,731
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Normally, I would have a problem with this.

    However, everytime the market opens up to allow a competitor the same people who cry from the rooftops that their preferred source of media is a "private entity" and "can do what they want" then they call for the same censorship and shutdown of a competing social platform.

    Case in point:
    4chan
    8chan
    Voat
    Gab

    NZ shooter posted his manifesto to 8ch. Now much of the American media is demanding its shutdown. Cloudflare used the same argument against them.

    These groups lobby and find all these other ways to deplatform competitors, and in the case of Gab, they got all the payment processors to stop working for them so they couldn't get funding.

    I don't want this law, because I want the market to work. I think the problem needs to be worked from another angle.
     
  9. kinjo

    kinjo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,053
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Although I believe social media platforms should not (in most cases) censor users I am not sure if legislating penalties for them doing so is appropriate. They are after all not government entities. It seems like this legislation could result in some pretty serious unintended consequences if not drafted with extreme care. I can see both sides as I do believe simply saying that twitter/facebook etc. are private companies and can do as they please is choosing to be willfully ignorant of the role those companies play in perpetuating discourse in the modern world but on the other hand where does it stop? can foreign governments spread propaganda because they have a right to free speech? can people spread demonstrable falsehoods? who is to be the judge of what is free speech and what is not will facebook need to go to the supreme court in order to take a post down? Not saying this law is for sure a bad thing just very concerned about what it could do if not written properly.
     
    GoodBoy likes this.
  10. Skyblue

    Skyblue Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    256
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Indeed. Each ISP could in principle censor the data it choose to let through. Or how much bandwidth it chooses to let the sender/receiver use. I mean, you could just not use the internet, right? Go see your friends instead?
     
  11. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    You're either trolling or ignorant. First of all, Fox News isn't 'social media' it's media. Mainstream media. Pretty much the only right leaning mainstream media outlet there is.And you want to censor it. I find that completely unsurprising.
    Everything else, is biased to one degree or another to the left.
    Here are 50 examples.
    There have been studies done that also illustrate this fact quite clearly but to be frank.....left-wing media bias seems to be obvious to most people except leftists who cannot tolerate even a single opposing viewpoint.
     
    mullet, DooKey and kirbyrj like this.
  12. Tweak42

    Tweak42 Gawd

    Messages:
    603
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    ^^^
    Pretty much this. I'm not sure if this politician be trolling or seriously thinks it would work. In either case it's a waste every ones time cause we're all here discussing it.....
     
    Auer and GoodBoy like this.
  13. Factum

    Factum [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,729
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2014
    Bad idea....will give muppets like anti-vaxxers a "loop-hole" to spread their lies...
     
  14. Skyblue

    Skyblue Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    256
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    It certainly will. And it will give their opponents their loop hole to spread their lies.

    More to the point, who determines what i a lie? The state? The church? The "infallible" church of science? If the price is thet antivaxxers get to spread their lies, then that is a lot better than some global private corporation gets to determine what is truth and not.
     
    DooKey, Crosshairs and wyqtor like this.
  15. MyNameIsAlex

    MyNameIsAlex Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    313
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2019
  16. Patton187

    Patton187 Gawd

    Messages:
    670
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    I'd say the sociopath is the person that attempts to deplatform others.
     
  17. kirbyrj

    kirbyrj [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    24,214
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    I think Florida should be more worried about the idiots who check Facebook while they are driving in the middle of I-95.
     
  18. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,022
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    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?
     
  19. BlueFireIce

    BlueFireIce [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,123
    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    FB, Twitter, etc etc I see often times as the scum of the Earth, but with that said, it is their platform, if you don't like it or don't like what they don't allow, good reason or not, don't use it. Much like the forum here, yes, they have to respect your right to say whatever you want, but they DO NOT have to provide you a platform for that speech.
     
    britjh22 likes this.
  20. Master_shake_

    Master_shake_ [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,658
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    So they'll do the thinking for you.

    How interesting a view you've got there.
     
    Laowai and Crosshairs like this.
  21. Crosshairs

    Crosshairs Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,494
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    and it will give people like you the opportunity to call them muppets ...now do you understand how that no censorship thing works?
     
    mullet, pendragon1, Skyblue and 2 others like this.
  22. Dekoth-E-

    Dekoth-E- [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,600
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    I just assumed trolling or both and didn't respond to him.
     
  23. Olle P

    Olle P Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    331
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Did you actually read the proposed bill?

    1. It does not apply to every company, but a select few (big) ones.
    2. It does not apply to companies that are outspokenly affiliated to some political or religious agenda.
    3. There are still quite a few types of "statements" that the senator doesn't want to protect.

    I must say I'd basically support it, as written.
    My only (minor) complaint is the exclusion on line 91:
    "[It's okay to censor material that] 2. Is obscene or pornographic in nature;"
    My problem with this is that all to often the definitions of what is "obscene" or "pornographic" are way to wide and/or arbitrary.
     
  24. Factum

    Factum [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,729
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2014
    Not on private platforms...this law is just like compelled speech...the last stand of lies and muppets.
     
  25. GoodBoy

    GoodBoy [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,338
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    I guess you missed the sarcasm... in the absurdity of the statement "censor them fucktards..."
     
    Laowai likes this.
  26. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    I'm torn on this.
    How have social media platforms become a public forum? The case has been made that when used by gov't agencies and officials, those particular channels are indeed public forums and constitutional protections apply. That does not (AFAIK) carry over to anybody who can hammer their face into a keyboard.

    I'm far less bothered about social media twits deleting things or blocking people than I am Google hiding things it decides it or its advertisers don't like and/or promoting their ideology or that of its advertisers.
     
  27. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    I completely missed it.
    I have seen quite a few people say retarded shit like that and mean it completely.
     
  28. TonyZ

    TonyZ Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    169
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    I'm just saying, this is a dangerous road to go down and I don't agree with it at all. 75 million users today, what about tomorrow so snark off...
     
  29. GoodBoy

    GoodBoy [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,338
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Ok, so let's try to think about this seriously.

    Proposed bill -> Company cannot censor content, but not all you little companies, only the big ones. (Already a huge loophole, and unfair)
    -> You are a big Religious organization? Censor all you want! (How is this even remotely ok, if social media cannot censor?)

    Then you bring up the point, who is to decide what is obscene?

    Pro's and cons, pretty much fall in line with your ideological leaning:

    Censor a post of fake news. Pro if you are the target of lies, Con if you believe the lie. My view: They should be free to censor lies. As everyone has pointed out, these platforms are so big now, many many people use them, and to their detriment, this may be their primary source of news.

    We can address every situation in the same way.

    But to your point, who decides what is obscene, what is a lie? I sure as hell do not trust the goverment to uphold that. As free as America is, our current president would be a full-on dictator if he could get away with it. I trust a corporation in this respect only a little more. The way these social media platforms earn money is ads. If they let it devolve into more of an internet trash heap, it's bad for business, companies pull ads, we might lose our favorite landfill playground.

    I haven't seen any evidence that anything that may have ever been censored on any social media platform, was politically motivated.

    But what if it was?

    Newspapers - politically tilted, and they sure as hell are not going to be told by the government that they HAVE to print something they don't agree with.. Yeah, we want a society like that, just move to China, Iraq, North Korea.
    Junknews TV - politically tilted, and they sure as hell do not air anything they don't agree with either. In fact they straight up lie, misconstru.. oh wait, they are entertainment, not news.. You thought we were "real" news?? Lol, joke's on you.

    But the majority of people on social media get their news from social media!! Oh wait, a lot of it is links to the crap I just previously cited... So the shit linked on Facebook comes from biased, censored as they see fit sources, and Facebook cannot also censor it?

    Are you for censorship or against?

    There is no obvious correct or good answer, other than I trust our lawmakers less than I trust Facebooks' desire to make money, which means them cleaning the shit from their platform as best they can.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019
  30. NickJames

    NickJames [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,602
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Why do I have a feeling that if the pamphlets were to join the Church of Satan the Supreme Court would've sided differently.
     
  31. Factum

    Factum [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,729
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2014
    It’s really simple:

    If you arecon the street, feel free to spread your FUD.
    If you are inside my home, you STFU. Spread your FUD and I will toss you on the street.


    This smells like sour grapes...
     
  32. Crosshairs

    Crosshairs Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,494
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    so whats your actual objection? is it that people can say things you dont agree with or is it that its possibly being done a private platform....

    because the post that I originally replied to sure sounds like you just want to silence a certain group of people....
     
    pendragon1 and mullet like this.
  33. Majinhoju

    Majinhoju [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,336
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    I don't know...

    I thought republicans preferred a small government style system that wouldn't regulate private businesses so much. Facebook, twitter, youtube etc... are simply reacting to the current market.
     
    britjh22 likes this.
  34. The Mad Atheist

    The Mad Atheist Gawd

    Messages:
    915
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2018
    Good, hopefully it passes, tired of getting block-ban for 30 days because I hurt someone's ideologies' feelings.

    I kink of find it funny you can criticize, mock, or insult freedom, capitalism, racism, communism, Christianity, Judaism, ect ect ect, but when you do it to Islam, holy hell, BANZ HIMZ!!!
     
    mullet likes this.
  35. Stanley Pain

    Stanley Pain 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,386
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    I'm all for throwing all social media into a dumpsterfire where it belongs.
     
    pendragon1 likes this.
  36. SilverSliver

    SilverSliver Beat It To Deformation

    Messages:
    11,016
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    So you are a-okay with monolithic tech companies controlling what is read, seen and heard - as long as those viewpoints are your own I assume? If you can control what people read, see and hear - you can control how they think. This is a fact.
     
    Tsumi and M76 like this.
  37. Factum

    Factum [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,729
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2014
    There are some groups that spread lies and risk public health...I like to see them off this planet yes...because you cannot fix stupid...stupid is forever.

    But I will settle for them have no access to social media as a start...
     
  38. illli

    illli [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,228
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Reading some of these comments further solidifies my belief that we truly are headed towards a real life version of idiocracy
     
    gtrguy and Stanley Pain like this.
  39. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Honestly, until we get some really bad ideas out of our collective heads, we may not be ready for this conversation as a culture. We need to realize that there is no such thing as "hate speech". If you think there is...I challenge you to define it diffrently from just speech you don't like. There's speech.....there's speech we don't like.....and there is speech used to directly incite violence. Real violence. Not the make-believe version of violence where people think they're victims because somebody used words. One of those three is wrong and punishable. The other two should be equally protected.....
    .....
    .....
    unless you're shouting from somebody else's front lawn and that fellow wants you to shut the fuck up.

    I was torn on this up until a few moments ago. I don't think it matters one bit how many users any social media app has, they're still private and can do as they please in regard to who they allow to use their app and what content is shown and/or permitted. They do not become a 'public forum' simply because their product is successful.

    If an individual has an opinion that is not welcome on any one/some/all of the big social media platforms, that person is not being denied something they have a right to.

    As a culture, it may be more a far more meaningful to have discussions about our reliance on social media in general. What are we giving up (privacy, protected speech, etc) for access to these apps? Do they actually provide something of worth? Are they a net positive for us? Etc.
     
    GoodBoy and britjh22 like this.
  40. Crosshairs

    Crosshairs Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,494
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    I cant find fault in your logic but I cannot support the way you suggest we do it. what starts as censoring lies and misinformation will morph into censoring what those in charge deem unacceptable ..its just not a path Im willing to go down .
     
    pendragon1 likes this.