Florida Introduces "Stop Social Media Censorship Act"

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...

Millennials are in their 40's, a good chunk of them are not even eligible for selective service anymore. Point your complaints at Gen Z. Blaming "Millennials" just shows how lazy and out of touch you are.
 
To be fair is it just millennials getting offended on social media? I've seen plenty of people of all ages losing their shit and getting offended on facebook over nonense (both left and right leaning folk).
 
was that first part a question or statement?! the whiniest most outraged are the 20-30s but yes people of all ages and all political ranges take part.
 
I just wonder if social media was a thing 20 years ago would the 20 - 30s crowd back then be looked at the same way the 20 - 30s crowd is now. Anyways, I don't have any numbers, I just haven't noticed a real difference in how people behave on facebook regardless of their age. Social media seems to be a nasty venting ground for all walks of life.
 
Majinhoju said:
I just wonder if social media was a thing 20 years ago would the 20 - 30s crowd back then be looked at the same way the 20 - 30s crowd is now. Anyways, I don't have any numbers, I just haven't noticed a real difference in how people behave on facebook regardless of their age. Social media seems to be a nasty venting ground for all walks of life.
Click to expand...
It is. But you get censored if you're on the right or just offend someone slightly on the left.
 
pendragon1 said:
probably already a law about that. pro lifers cant get close to a PPH....
tune's pretty catchy lol
Click to expand...
Apparently in Florida that's up for debate... I mean if Twitter and Facebook are "banned" from moderating the speech on their private platforms, what's to stop the government from telling anyone else to let people "exercise" their "free speech"?

This law is stupid, just like social media. If you really want to foster "free speech" figure out a way to abolish identity politics.

And it is a damn catchy tune ;)
 
capt_cope said:
Apparently in Florida that's up for debate... I mean if Twitter and Facebook are "banned" from moderating the speech on their private platforms, what's to stop the government from telling anyone else to let people "exercise" their "free speech"?

This law is stupid, just like social media. If you really want to foster "free speech" figure out a way to abolish identity politics.
Click to expand...
umm free speech for all is what we want. "hey, let that guy talk" from the gov doesn't seem that bad. its not just identity politics either.
 
GoldenTiger said:
It's been tried. Facebook etc are far too big and entrenched. In the case of Gab, their domain registrar and all payments like PayPal and credit card processors dumped them, Google and Apple both banned their app from their app stores, and Facebook/Twitter banned them. Poof, no more platforms!
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Gab. They were rightfully shunned because, surprise surprise, a right-centric social network turned out to be a hive for radical right wing terrorists (the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter posted there regularly and once attention centered there, it became obvious many others shared his wacko viewpoints.)
 
Colonel Sanders said:
Ah yes, Gab. They were rightfully shunned because, surprise surprise, a right-centric social network turned out to be a hive for radical right wing terrorists (the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter posted there regularly and once attention centered there, it became obvious many others shared his wacko viewpoints.)
Click to expand...
umm NZ guy posted on twitter and live streamed it on facebook. feel the same way?
 
pendragon1 said:
umm NZ guy posted on twitter and live streamed it on facebook. feel the same way?
Click to expand...

You think you made a slam dunk point, but you really didn't. a) it simply points out that you can be a right wing nutjob and still post on Facebook, and b) obviously NO social network can stop/censor a post the second it goes live provided it doesn't trip any algorithms like language detection etc.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
You think you made a slam dunk point, but you really didn't. a) it simply points out that you can be a right wing nutjob and still post on Facebook, and b) obviously NO social network can stop/censor a post the second it goes live provided it doesn't trip any algorithms like language detection etc.
Click to expand...
Actually he did make a slam dunk. Try reading in full before replying.
 
M76 said:
LOL, very astute, and well reasoned. So I take it you think equal opportunity is not a good thing then?
Enjoy your animal farm, just don't complain when you happen to be on the wrong side of the pitchfork.
Click to expand...
You're usually an intelligent person. I should not need to spoon-feed you the reasons why your earlier statements were inaccurate.
But....I've been wrong before, so here we go.....
M76 said:
Free speech applies to anyone who can hammer a keyboard.
Click to expand...
Untrue. Obviously it's untrue since we're discussing legislation that may make it otherwise, at least in some measure. Currently, if you're posting on somebody else's platform...your speech is not protected no matter how hard you wish it were different. Gov't agencies and officials are a bit different, as things currently stand, their public channels of communication on these platforms are considered public forums and all rights are granted along with that. Your position that those protections should apply to all users of a platform because political activists are a thing is completely bewildering. What is a political activist but just another douche with an opinion? It's like saying all manuscripts must be published by a major publisher regardless of their content and potential harm to the publishers business and/or reputation because publishers have permitted opinion pieces in the past.
M76 said:
Social media become public platforms when political activists started using them as platforms for their propaganda. If you allow one side of the debate then you must by definition allow others too. And most definitely you must allow the ideas posted there to be challenged.
This is what facebook / instagram and twitter doesn't allow.
They should either ban alll politics, or allow all politics.
Instead of permitting one side of the political spectrum to be represented there, while actively hunting and erasing the other.
Click to expand...
Kindly show me the definition that states as you've suggested......
You may want to read the Communications Act.
No media format has to grant equal time to the opinions/thoughts of random people and not even to politicians.

That's why I said your earlier statements were untrue. To continue...

The basic argument seems to be that certain social media platforms should be considered as public forums because a lot of people use their service, right?
Think that through. Think about how easy it would be to lower that number and expand restrictions on what private companies are permitted to do.

Not every country actually has *free* speech so which protections are granted on which platform and to which user? Currently it's not *too* complicated as most major social media outlets are based in the States and China but there is zero reason to believe that will remain true, especially if half-baked ideas like this legislation are passed, as doubtful as that may be. There are numerous apps/platforms from all over the world that could be considered social media but since your position seemingly and the proposal is that only those with over (insert arbitrary number here) must offer protections then you have to define and justify that number. How do you do that? Why would the number of worldwide users matter and do they have to be active users or simply registered users...and how do you determine the number that the registered users are actual people....and how do you account for duplicates or fakes? Also, who would these protections be granted to? US citizens or anyone making a post from US territory or anyone whose packets bounce through US territory? What if the company moves its HQ out of the US or is otherwise not located in the US? What if a company is based in the US but its servers are elsewhere?

Finally....equal opportunity? What the what?
Equal opportunity does not in any way mean everyone magically has a right to any product/service offered by a private company.

I really have to wonder if the discussion would be different were the big social media apps not free of charge to use. Frankly, I'd like to see a social media platform that charges a monthly/yearly rate that actually protects privacy....but that conversation is for another day I guess.

In an attempt to make something crystal clear.....I don't think any comment, post, or video.... no matter how distasteful to some, should be removed or otherwise hidden on social media or search results by default. That is my opinion. That does not mean I am in favor of permitting the gov't to interfere with private business more than it already does. What I am in favor of, is somebody offering an alternative to the current shitshow and/or having truthful discussions about what we really pay for *free* software.
 
Last edited:
Majinhoju said:
I just find it odd that people who would typically prefer the government be very hands off with speech would also want them to be very hands on in a matter with a private company. Wouldn't government intervention like this go against the small government model that most right wing leaning people prefer?
Click to expand...
Yes. And this is why I was initially torn on the topic. It hit two 'hot-button' issues for me. I cannot abide censorship and I do not like granting gov't more power than it already has.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
Ah yes, Gab. They were rightfully shunned because, surprise surprise, a right-centric social network turned out to be a hive for radical right wing terrorists (the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter posted there regularly and once attention centered there, it became obvious many others shared his wacko viewpoints.)
Click to expand...
Gab made him do it? Is that what you're saying?
 
Colonel Sanders said:
.... you're not being serious, are you?
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't really serious and I had hoped you weren't serious either.
Gab was shut down because it didn't censor its users. How is anyone in favor of that and acting like it was some sort of victory?
All those who ended their relationship with Gab and in essence forced them to shut down were within their rights to do so as private companies themselves....but under no circumstances do I think shit like that should be applauded or viewed as correct.
“We believe that the only valid form of censorship is self-censorship, an individual’s freedom to opt-out. Gab empowers users to self-censor and remove unwanted followers, words, phrases, and topics they don’t want to see in their feeds to help stop and prevent different forms harassment. However, we do take steps to protect ourselves and our users from illegal activity.”
Click to expand...
GARRRRGH!!11!!! Shut 'em down!!

EDIT: We need more services like Gab, not less.
 
Last edited:
So to reiterate one of my points. If ita ok for facebook to censor its content because they are a private company, why cant ISPs? Let them remove Bernie Sanders from their stream. Maybe they would prevent you fron posting on any social network. You could always build your own...

Question: arent there laws to prevent a group of persons controlling too much og the newspaper/tv/radio media. To prevent any one person to control the narrative?
 
Laowai said:
You're usually an intelligent person. I should not need to spoon-feed you the reasons why your earlier statements were inaccurate.
But....I've been wrong before, so here we go.....
Click to expand...
usually? Nice backhanded compliment. :p
Untrue. Obviously it's untrue since we're discussing legislation that may make it otherwise, at least in some measure. Currently, if you're posting on somebody else's platform...your speech is not protected no matter how hard you wish it were different. Gov't agencies and officials are a bit different, as things currently stand, their public channels of communication on these platforms are considered public forums and all rights are granted along with that. Your position that those protections should apply to all users of a platform because political activists are a thing is completely bewildering. What is a political activist but just another douche with an opinion? It's like saying all manuscripts must be published by a major publisher regardless of their content and potential harm to the publishers business and/or reputation because publishers have permitted opinion pieces in the past.
Kindly show me the definition that states as you've suggested......
You may want to read the Communications Act.
No media format has to grant equal time to the opinions/thoughts of random people and not even to politicians.
Click to expand...
You made two mistakes here. First assuming I'm from the US. Since I'm not from there and don't live there US legislation has no relevance to me. Maybe apart from serving as a precedent to other countries lawmakers.
Second one is assuming that I'm saying that's how it is by law (social media being a public platform) I'm suggesting how it should be, not what it's legal status is currently.

A political activist is someone who doesn't just share bullshit on facebook in their spare time, but actually paid by a media outlet to tow the narrative.

facebook / twitter / instagram are not media. They are platforms that are supposedly free for all people. They do not edit the content. At least they aren't supposed to. However they moderate their content trough very biased political lenses.
And I'm saying that's wrong due to the widespread nature of people using these as a sources of news. And it is something that needs to be addressed. That's what this Florida proposal is attempting to do it seems to me. And that seems like a good thing to me.

The basic argument seems to be that certain social media platforms should be considered as public forums because a lot of people use their service, right?
Think that through. Think about how easy it would be to lower that number and expand restrictions on what private companies are permitted to do.
Click to expand...
No it's not easy. Actually it is impossible. What private companies post on their private edited outlets is completely different to what is posted on free for all public forums.
The proposal is that if you allow users to register for free and then post comments on it, then you cannot moderate what is being posted based on arbitrary rules.
The only moderation allowed should be based on whether it is child safe (if it's not an R rated site) and what is illegal. Selectively removing dissenting comments should be a no-no.

Not every country actually has *free* speech so which protections are granted on which platform and to which user? Currently it's not *too* complicated as most major social media outlets are based in the States and China but there is zero reason to believe that will remain true, especially if half-baked ideas like this legislation are passed, as doubtful as that may be. There are numerous apps/platforms from all over the world that could be considered social media but since your position seemingly and the proposal is that only those with over (insert arbitrary number here) must offer protections then you have to define and justify that number. How do you do that? Why would the number of worldwide users matter and do they have to be active users or simply registered users...and how do you determine the number that the registered users are actual people....and how do you account for duplicates or fakes? Also, who would these protections be granted to? US citizens or anyone making a post from US territory or anyone whose packets bounce through US territory? What if the company moves its HQ out of the US or is otherwise not located in the US? What if a company is based in the US but its servers are elsewhere?
Click to expand...
That's all covered by allowing them to remove what is illegal, whichever local law applies to them. Although I do think it is stupid to use local laws on the internet which is global. As you can read content hosted anywhere in the world at a moments notice. Should what is allowed be changed based on where you're looking at it from? That is impossible to uphold.
In a broader scheme of things I think the internet should be elevated above the laws of any one nation. And global universally accepted code of conduct must be devised for it. In my opinion the internet should be similar to neutral waters. No country should have jurisdiction over it.

Finally....equal opportunity? What the what?
Equal opportunity does not in any way mean everyone magically has a right to any product/service offered by a private company.
Click to expand...
Actually it does in my country. And that's a good thing. You are not legally allowed to refuse service to anyone. If you offer to do a service you cannot exclude certain groups from that. What social media is doing currently is the equivalent of a business writing on the door: "no blacks allowed" Only they don't write it on the door just throw out anyone who is not to the extreme marxist left.

I really have to wonder if the discussion would be different were the big social media apps not free of charge to use. Frankly, I'd like to see a social media platform that charges a monthly/yearly rate that actually protects privacy....but that conversation is for another day I guess.
Click to expand...
It would be very different, because that would be a paid service, based on a contract. And as such the parties can put in the contract whatever they wish as long as it doesn't contradict effective laws.

In an attempt to make something crystal clear.....I don't think any comment, post, or video.... no matter how distasteful to some, should be removed or otherwise hidden on social media or search results by default. That is my opinion. That does not mean I am in favor of permitting the gov't to interfere with private business more than it already does. What I am in favor of, is somebody offering an alternative to the current shitshow and/or having truthful discussions about what we really pay for *free* software.
Click to expand...
In other words you want an unbiased platform that is not compelled by anything to be unbiased, just magically is? That's an utopia. It's like having a benevolent dictator.. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
zuckerberg / dorsey / systrom etc. didn't set out to build a platform that is selective based on politics. But as they become big and saw that they have the opportunity to manipulate the narrative they all took it.
 
M76 said:
You made two mistakes here. First assuming I'm from the US. Since I'm not from there and don't live there US legislation has no relevance to me.
Click to expand...
Well, you are in a thread about proposed US legislation that you state has no relevence to yourself yet that evidently did not stop you from making comments on what free speech is and isn't, what activism is and isn't, etc. I'd say the onus is on you to be more clear on when you're discussing the topic and when you're talking about things in another country.

EDIT: I won't continue this conversation as I don't know how things are in your country and have little interest in discussing them in this thread.
 
Crosshairs said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Private entities...they are free to tell eg. Anti-vaxxers to sod off...it's their right on their platform.
 
Factum said:
Private entities...they are free to tell eg. Anti-vaxxers to sod off...it's their right on their platform.
Click to expand...


OK, so no anti-vaxxers..what about flat earthers are they allowed to speak? how about people who think NASA faked the moon landing...do we cut them off too? how about atheists ?.... is there a list somewhere of approved thoughts or do we just make it up as we go along?
 
Crosshairs said:
OK, so no anti-vaxxers..what about flat earthers are they allowed to speak? how about people who think NASA faked the moon landing...do we cut them off too? how about atheists ?.... is there a list somewhere of approved thoughts or do we just make it up as we go along?
Click to expand...

Anti-vaxxers endager lifes....they should be put down IMHO

Moon-hoaxers, 9/11'er, chemtrailers and the rest of the idiotic garbage are just an annoyance with their stupidity.....the mordern day version of "the village idiot".
I would leave it up for the private entities to set their own I.Q.-bar....and then I will stop using the platform that caters to the low I.Q. muppets...but it is up for facebook, twitter, instagram etc. on how they want to use their private platform.

They way I see it, this is someone got mad over that Alex Jones got shut down...and this is the "pay-back" attempt.

This is not about free speech....this smell like US retarded politics disguised as something else...it's retarded.
 
Crosshairs said:
OK, so no anti-vaxxers..what about flat earthers are they allowed to speak? how about people who think NASA faked the moon landing...do we cut them off too? how about atheists ?.... is there a list somewhere of approved thoughts or do we just make it up as we go along?
Click to expand...
Let 'em censor whatever they want until people have had enough of it and seek alternatives. It may take a minute, but I think a growing number of people are hoping for an alternative.
In less than 10 years I fully expect FB and Twitter to be populated with nothing more than company accounts and grandparents in the US.
 
Laowai said:
Let 'em censor whatever they want until people have had enough of it and seek alternatives. It may take a minute, but I think a growing number of people are hoping for an alternative.
In less than 10 years I fully expect FB and Twitter to be populated with nothing more than company accounts and grandparents in the US.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Any competing service with any ability to see success will be bought by the existing companies. This is already happening. As long as the revenue model relies on selling customer data and ad distribution, coupled with the predominantly left leaning direction of these entities, the underlying fundamentals of what restricts certain speech in the first place will remain the same.
 
Thank goodness the US of A is a country where we have a constitutional right to free speech where this type of debate can actually happen. I don't believe there is any place in the world that has this explicit freedom. Sure, can lose a job and have other ramifications for what is said (within limitations already mentioned) - but generally speaking, you don't get thrown in jail for voicing an opinion or making an inappropriate joke (or something somebody somewhere deemed offensive).

Sad thing to me is... if people actually really cared about this they would "vote with their wallets" (or here, choosing what 'free' services to use or not) and try something else. But they don't... or can't... because (also like previously mentioned) said competition doesn't exist - and of course that starts to get into a whole different (but slightly related) can of worms if that same 'free' service is using their massive influence to keep competition from even starting...
 
Factum said:
Anti-vaxxers endager lifes....they should be put down IMHO

Moon-hoaxers, 9/11'er, chemtrailers and the rest of the idiotic garbage are just an annoyance with their stupidity.....the mordern day version of "the village idiot".
I would leave it up for the private entities to set their own I.Q.-bar....and then I will stop using the platform that caters to the low I.Q. muppets...but it is up for facebook, twitter, instagram etc. on how they want to use their private platform.

They way I see it, this is someone got mad over that Alex Jones got shut down...and this is the "pay-back" attempt.

This is not about free speech....this smell like US retarded politics disguised as something else...it's retarded.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand what you're saying. Everyone talks like platforms are all that and a bag of chips. What makes platforms special is when people actually use them. No one talks about myspace as a platform to disseminate information when there's facebook and twitter. No one talks about vimeo when there's youtube.

Also, all ideas should be discussed and should have people decide for themselves if they agree with it or not. Some issues aren't all that clear cut. There's a lot of nuances to multiple issues. It sounds like you'd rather "burn all the books" rather than allow anyone to write any criticism of a subject which is a fairly extreme position.

What your suggesting creates a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's appropriate, what's main stream thought, what's worth while to discuss and what's garbage ideas? The platform owners which do not and should not represent the expressions/ideas of the ones who are using the platform? And if so, why?

I think what you're missing out is realizing that these "platform providers" that you're describing are modern day communication companies, and communication companies get to enjoy immunity from prosecution due to common carrier status. Basically it's them saying "the opinions stated on this service isn't ours and we don't own it nor can be moderate it. Whether it's legal, illegal or other, that's not our problem, it's the person who used this service". The more you ask them to moderate things you don't like, the more responsibility they take in doing so and the higher chance that things flip around and things you do like will get moderated off.
 
Lots of good (and some bad) thoughts and opinions here.
Speaking for myself... and no I haven't 100% fleshed this out... For the "free" platforms over ~50M, I would like accounts to be authenticated somehow, tied to a real person, via a PKI or CAC card or some-such, which you could not change. One "online" account for life, tied to you, without ability to get a new one. When someone posts something, you know it's a real person maybe even show the state (similar for outside US) they currently reside in. Every post that person made on that platform would be public and searchable going back 7 years, e.g, you could look at their history. This would also enable someone to recover from past mistakes, like bankruptcy. Painful, but recoverable.

Make it voluntary, and only those who authenticate themselves can see others info... believe people would start doing it... I know if had a "show only posts from authenticated users" option, and maybe with a "United States" filter, I would use it. Exclusively. Over time I think it would cut the crazy down by 90%. Yeah you have free speech, but with transparency and accountability.

Again, haven't ironed out the details, guessing the hackers would make it a challenge to implement (thus the physical card)... maybe more wishful thinking than about the proposed law....
 
A lot of what gets censored or controlled by the platform owners is also a reaction to the current market. Youtube started demonetizing videos more heavily after the Logan Paul Japan suicide video went viral (after the outrage, it had already built up millions of views before Youtube did anything about it).
While I believe alot of what's being said about Facebook's censorship is being over exaggerated (based of what I've witnessed on facebook, i've seen tons of angry right wing content go unfiltered, and left wing content get censored), what does get censored is also a reaction to the current market.
Gab couldn't succeed? Well the market showed them the door. Just capitalism at work.
 
pendragon1 said:
they want it regulated(or not, depending how you look at it) fairly. are you guys not getting that? right now the silencing/suppression is only going one way.
Click to expand...

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.

Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

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...

M76 said:
The proposal is that if you allow users to register for free and then post comments on it, then you cannot moderate what is being posted based on arbitrary rules.
The only moderation allowed should be based on whether it is child safe (if it's not an R rated site) and what is illegal. Selectively removing dissenting comments should be a no-no...
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:
God whale said:
I don't really understand what you're saying. Everyone talks like platforms are all that and a bag of chips. What makes platforms special is when people actually use them. No one talks about myspace as a platform to disseminate information when there's facebook and twitter. No one talks about vimeo when there's youtube.

Also, all ideas should be discussed and should have people decide for themselves if they agree with it or not. Some issues aren't all that clear cut. There's a lot of nuances to multiple issues. It sounds like you'd rather "burn all the books" rather than allow anyone to write any criticism of a subject which is a fairly extreme position.

What your suggesting creates a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's appropriate, what's main stream thought, what's worth while to discuss and what's garbage ideas? The platform owners which do not and should not represent the expressions/ideas of the ones who are using the platform? And if so, why?

I think what you're missing out is realizing that these "platform providers" that you're describing are modern day communication companies, and communication companies get to enjoy immunity from prosecution due to common carrier status. Basically it's them saying "the opinions stated on this service isn't ours and we don't own it nor can be moderate it. Whether it's legal, illegal or other, that's not our problem, it's the person who used this service". The more you ask them to moderate things you don't like, the more responsibility they take in doing so and the higher chance that things flip around and things you do like will get moderated off.
Click to expand...


"Private platform"...what part of of that gives you problems...then I will spell it out for you?
 
GoodBoy said:
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!!
Click to expand...
ok then....
 
Factum said:
"Private platform"...what part of of that gives you problems...then I will spell it out for you?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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
 
Last edited:
GoldenTiger said:
It's been tried. Facebook etc are far too big and entrenched. In the case of Gab, their domain registrar and all payments like PayPal and credit card processors dumped them, Google and Apple both banned their app from their app stores, and Facebook/Twitter banned them. Poof, no more platforms!
Click to expand...

Youtube remains as far as I can tell. I've never had my comments messed with there not that I am extremely active on Youtube.
 
God whale said:
I don't really understand what you're saying. Everyone talks like platforms are all that and a bag of chips. What makes platforms special is when people actually use them. No one talks about myspace as a platform to disseminate information when there's facebook and twitter. No one talks about vimeo when there's youtube.

Also, all ideas should be discussed and should have people decide for themselves if they agree with it or not. Some issues aren't all that clear cut. There's a lot of nuances to multiple issues. It sounds like you'd rather "burn all the books" rather than allow anyone to write any criticism of a subject which is a fairly extreme position.

What your suggesting creates a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's appropriate, what's main stream thought, what's worth while to discuss and what's garbage ideas? The platform owners which do not and should not represent the expressions/ideas of the ones who are using the platform? And if so, why?

I think what you're missing out is realizing that these "platform providers" that you're describing are modern day communication companies, and communication companies get to enjoy immunity from prosecution due to common carrier status. Basically it's them saying "the opinions stated on this service isn't ours and we don't own it nor can be moderate it. Whether it's legal, illegal or other, that's not our problem, it's the person who used this service". The more you ask them to moderate things you don't like, the more responsibility they take in doing so and the higher chance that things flip around and things you do like will get moderated off.
Click to expand...
I'd much rather see common carrier status slapped on these platforms than see legislation like that proposed by Florida guy.
My inner-Libertarian is OK with that.
 
So much hyperbole in this thread... just fucking wacky. And for the record- fuck Facebook, who uses that shit anymore? It jumped the shark years ago.
 
GoodBoy said:
That's complete horsehit.
Click to expand...
The dismissal of an argument with no basis is still not an argument.

Show me an arbitrary rule... ?
Click to expand...
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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?

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

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...
Click to expand...
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.

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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top