Florida passes law to stop social media companies from permanent bans

[jem]

Steps to understand the argument

1. Read section 230 and understand what it does... . for instance https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230



Why do facebook and other sites which publish users content desire to avail themselves of 230 protection?

2. Understand US law in this regard is somewhat unique which is why many of these sites are in the US.

3. Now understand why newspapers are liable for their own content but not the content of the authors in their comments section.

4. Now think about facebook removes posts which argue that the virus may have started in the lab but allow content which discredits the theory. Or supresses the reach of political posts... or posts which link to breitbart but leaves posts to liberal sites?




Is facebook acting like Newpaper or its comment section when it edits content?

There is no such thing as an open forum... everything has user/ standards of conduct and moderators and people in charge of policing behaviors.

I think you guys live in la la land.

FB is a private company and is under no legal requirement to allow all content. This is the ignorance that pervades the U.S. with respect to social media...

There are no defamation suits just becase a site refuses to allow certain content.

We cannot just make up laws that do not exist.

Open Forum means it is open to all. Does not mean you get an absolute right to POST whatever you want in violation of terms of use.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Bottom line..... FB is a private entity and can do what it wants..

crying about it just sounds like crying...

they moderate their content .. end of story

 

[jem]

not the the real bottom line... and no one is crying...

but if it makes you feel better.

Bottom line..... FB is a private entity and can do what it wants..

crying about it just sounds like crying...

 

[UsualName]

This is actually the right take:

If you’re unhappy with your service, take your business elsewhere.

And just so we are clear, conservatives dominate social media:

 

[El OchoCinco]

Exactly.... open forum means all have access.....

If FB wants to moderate some content, their house.... their rules. No one is going to sue because their posts got taken down.

Much ado about snowflakes

 

[jem]

strawman bullshit... that is not the argument I am making.
Nobody is saying individuals would have winning law suits.

FB is currently protected by section 230 among other protections.

The point being made is that maybe FB should not be protected by 230 -
if they are editing and controlling the reach of things like facemasks... virus leaks and some political content.


-

Exactly.... open forum means all have access.....

If FB wants to moderate some content, their house.... their rules. No one is going to sue because their posts got taken down.

Much ado about snowflakes

 

[UsualName]

strawman bullshit... that is not the argument I am making.
Nobody is saying individuals would have winning law suits.

FB is currently protected by section 230 among other protections.

The point being made is that maybe FB should not be protected by 230 -
if they are editing and controlling the reach of things like facemasks... virus leaks and some political content.


-

for the record, Jem is a moron and this what section 230 actually does:

section 230 protects internet companies from liability for what their users post. These companies have the innate right to regulate what users post on their sites. For example, section 230 does not empower Twitter to ban hate speech because they already have that right under the first amendment. Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued if knuckleheads post dangerous and wrong information like facemasks don’t prevent the spread of Covid and people end up getting killed.

There are other parts related to sex trafficking and things like that but don’t let Jem confuse you. 230 limits liability for user posts.

 

[El OchoCinco]

for the record, Jem is a moron and this what section 230 actually does:

section 230 protects internet companies from liability for what their users post. These companies have the innate right to regulate what users post on their sites. For example, section 230 does not empower Twitter to ban hate speech because they already have that right under the first amendment. Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued if knuckleheads post dangerous and wrong information like facemasks don’t prevent the spread of Covid and people end up getting killed.

There are other parts related to sex trafficking and things like that but don’t let Jem confuse you. 230 limits liability for user posts.

Exactly.....just because FB moderates content does not mean they should now be liable for what idiots post. Idiots are still responsible for what they post and FB is just the platform and they try to weed out violations of terms of services. 230 just highlights what shoudl happen because people always try to sue the deper pockets just to get money even if they have no case.

 

[Spike Trader]

You can't make up stuff like this.

 

[Cuddles]

You can't make up stuff like this.



View attachment 259705

did he provide a link though?