Florida passes law to stop social media companies from permanent bans

[Cuddles]

Industry groups sue to stop Florida’s new social media law
Yes, the one with the theme park exception
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/27/...uit-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional

Two tech industry organizations have sued Florida over its newly passed rules for social networks. NetChoice and the CCIA — which represent Amazon, Google, Intel, Samsung, Facebook, and other tech giants — say SB 7072 violates private companies’ constitutional rights. They’re asking a court to prevent the law from taking effect, calling it a “frontal assault on the First Amendment.”

SB 7072, which Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed earlier this week, restricts how large social apps and websites can moderate user-generated content. It makes banning any Florida political candidate or “journalistic enterprise” unlawful, lets users sue if they believe they were banned without sufficient reason, requires an option to “opt out” of sorting algorithms, and places companies that break the law on an “antitrust violator blacklist” that bars them from doing business with public entities in Florida. Notably, it includes an exception for companies that operate a theme park.

NetChoice and the CCIA say SB 7072 conflicts with both constitutional protections and federal Section 230 rules. “As private businesses, Plaintiffs’ members have the right to decide what content is appropriate for their sites and platforms,” their complaint says. “The Act requires members to display and prioritize user-generated content that runs counter to their terms, policies, and business practices; content that will likely offend and repel their users and advertisers; and even content that is unlawful, dangerous to public health and national security, and grossly inappropriate for younger audiences.”

The lawsuit claims Florida lawmakers and DeSantis specifically tailored the law to punish services whose moderation policies they disagreed with, while adding the arbitrary theme park exception to pacify Disney, Comcast NBCUniversal, and a handful of other big companies. “The law is crony capitalism masquerading as consumer protection,” said NetChoice vice president and general counsel Carl Szabo in a statement.

The law’s supporters argue it fights “deplatforming” of users based on political speech, saying social networks have “morphed into the town square” and become public spaces. Courts have contradicted the latter claim outside extremely specific exceptions, determining that Section 230 mostly lets social networks make their own moderation decisions — and states can’t simply supersede that federal rule. However, the Florida bill let lawmakers and DeSantis signal support for a Republican backlash against Silicon Valley, whether or not it actually takes effect.

who could've seen this coming? Oh yeah, this guy:

So low IQ, they'll pay for DeCuntis to go to court and get his ass handed to him, all the while yelling "please give us more culture war DeCuntis!"

The point we are telling you is that there is not a legitimate legal argument, you just wish there was one. I don’t understand why you don’t understand social media companies are not public domain, even if you think they act as such. They are private companies. As long as they are not violating discrimination laws, they have the right under the first amendment to choose what content to allow on their site.

There is an important - very important - point to be made on both the 1st and 14th amendments in this matter. That is true. Private companies have the right to develop and protect their “brand.” If they don’t want to be associated with misinformation and hate speech then that is their right to remove that content from their property. And I get that free association isn’t an easy legal concept to understand but if you don’t understand something should you really even be talking about it?

slow Jem is slow, we had the 230 argument well over a year ago, just like we did masks, herd immunity, vaccines, etc...He does a 180 on these topics eventually and claims he's been right all along

 

[Baron]

We've never moderated the Politics forum from a one-sided perspective or banned a candidate or news reporter anyway.

The issue is that some of the social media sites are owned and operated by people with heavy political viewpoints and affiliations. So permanent banning of a political candidate on one of those platforms seems like it's skewing the perspective unfairly, especially since the opposite party still has posting abilities on the same platform.

But the reality is that's never going to happen here because I've always been a person who actually enjoys hosting both sides equally. I'm not one of these people who lives and dies on political news. I cast my vote and I'm done for the next 4 years. I don't have political news running on the TV all day and I never get into political discussions with people because since I'm hosting a site that provides a platform for both sides.

 

[jem]

a. Herd immunity is real... no one denies it now.
your team (GWB) here was so dumb and lied so many times... and we proved it.
As I said... we would not be here if there were not such a thing as herd immunity.

b. Two studies came out and found that masks did not protect the wearer... How much more correct do I need to be?

(I know you all claim the are now for stopping the spread... you all adjusted on that not me. And that is also far from proven in real life...not labs... not models

c. Vaccines... I don't know what you are talking about there.
Did I say something wrong about vaccines?
I have family member who have been vaccinated.
Link?

who could've seen this coming?



slow Jem is slow, we had the 230 argument well over a year ago, just like we did masks, herd immunity, vaccines, etc...He does a 180 on these topics eventually and claims he's been right all along

 

[El OchoCinco]

We've never moderated the Politics forum from a one-sided perspective or banned a candidate or news reporter anyway.

The issue is that some of the social media sites are owned and operated by people with heavy political viewpoints and affiliations. So permanent banning of a political candidate on one of those platforms seems like it's skewing the perspective unfairly, especially since the opposite party still has posting abilities on the same platform.

But the reality is that's never going to happen here because I've always been a person who actually enjoys hosting both sides equally. I'm not one of these people who lives and dies on political news. I cast my vote and I'm done for the next 4 years. I don't have political news running on the TV all day and I never get into political discussions with people because since I'm hosting a site that provides a platform for both sides.

Baron, if you decided to boot all pro Trump people from here you ahve every right to do so as this is your website privately owned.

FOX NEWS has every right to not cover any Dem candidates or give them airtime if they choose not to.

FB can take down posts that violate its terms of service.

OAN can support My Pillow Guy and fire anchors who are too liberal...

Not sure why others are having difficulty understanding this...

 

[Cuddles]

We've never moderated the Politics forum from a one-sided perspective or banned a candidate or news reporter anyway.

The issue is that some of the social media sites are owned and operated by people with heavy political viewpoints and affiliations. So permanent banning of a political candidate on one of those platforms seems like it's skewing the perspective unfairly, especially since the opposite party still has posting abilities on the same platform.

But the reality is that's never going to happen here because I've always been a person who actually enjoys hosting both sides equally. I'm not one of these people who lives and dies on political news. I cast my vote and I'm done for the next 4 years. I don't have political news running on the TV all day and I never get into political discussions with people because since I'm hosting a site that provides a platform for both sides.

And that's your prerogative, but even if you were a super slanted liberal shill that banned every con, you'd be w/in your rights to run such board and should be protected for that decision (if the claim here is that social media is operated by people w/heavy political viewpoints and affiliations).

 

[Baron]

Oh, I understand I COULD BE that way. I just choose not to and want you guys to know that.

 

[Overnight]

...

Not sure why others are having difficulty understanding this...

The difficulty comes from people who think that once they use a service for free, they are part-owners of that service and can have say in what service that service provider provides.

It's the "everyone is a winner" mentality, no-child-left-behind, nanny-state BS that has been growing in this country for 30 years.

It is the "I know better than you do what is good for you" attitude.

It is the "I am all up in your business because it is my business to be all up in your business" attitude.

It is the "I am more important to you than you are to yourself" attitude.

It is a lot of things. And it all started when we had to protect the fucking children from all evil. There was an old joke about how "when I was your age, i had to walk to school uphill in the snow, in the dark, both ways!".

Over time the joke became, "When I was your age, I had to walk to school!"

Now, sadly, the joke is "When I was your age, I had to stand on the bus corner without mommy holding my hand!" or "When I was your age, I lost sometimes!" or "When I was your age, I knew how to hold my own peepe...Er, wait, do I have a peepe...Am I a girl or boy? Do I have a choice? I want that choice! MOOOM!"

 

[wrbtrader]

who could've seen this coming? Oh yeah, this guy:

slow Jem is slow, we had the 230 argument well over a year ago, just like we did masks, herd immunity, vaccines, etc...He does a 180 on these topics eventually and claims he's been right all along

I don't know about all the threads jem participates within...

I have seen him in the past...debate, argue, troll members, personal attacks, abusive language more often than not in threads involving Sweden (a country he has no connection, a country that admitted its healthcare policy had failed), natural herd immunity and vaccinations in other threads.

Baron has a terms of use policy about the trolling but it seems to me (I could be wrong) that he doesn't do anything unless the person being trolled actually complains multiple times and the trolling involves abusive language, personal attacks or off topic issues that has nothing to do with the debate.

Strangely, I've seen the trolling allowed in the trading threads even after multiple complaints (public / private) about such. Yet, the only trolling I've seen jem do has been only in the Political threads. Actually, I'm not aware of his posting history in the trading threads although I'm aware he has had a username change although I don't know what was his prior username.

• The trolling is a strange policy to understand because I've seen people banned from specific threads or given a temporary banned for not even using abusive language nor personal attacks via just asking someone questions that had stated "ask me questions"...but then didn't like the questions that were being asked.

Regardless, arguing / debating here in the Political threads is one thing...the trolling with the other shit like personal attacks / abusive language is a psychotic behavior. In fact, I've seen Baron ban people for such but recently it seems more like "temporary bans" although I strongly believe they should be "permanent bans".

• My point, if members don't complain about jem's psychotic behavior on a consistent basis...Baron most likely will not do anything about it.

Yet, I've notice the trick seems to alert Baron to the problem is when someone post about such down in the Feedback threads or via private message so that Baron can take a closer look and put someone on Baron's radar.

Just as strange, I've seen messages deleted in the Feedback section that were not trolling, not abusive, not personal attacks...deleted because Baron deemed them to be off-topic.

I just do not understand the terms of use policy involving trolling here at Elitetrader.com in its Political threads nor in its Trading threads. It seems to have some hidden rules and personal agenda involved.

The issue may not really involve Baron...it may involve that he has moderators with different personalities. Thus, the moderator may react / moderate differently than Baron.

wrbtrader

 

[jem]

because that is not the issue.. no one saying you can't take a side...


The issue is when the editorial choices a website makes should take that out of the penumbra of 230 protection from liability.

In other words when a websites editorial choices should put them in the newspaper category instead of an open forum category. (don't tell me there is not an official open forum... I am talking about the difference between the front page of a newspaper vs the comments section.)

Not sure why you all are having difficulty understanding this.

Baron, if you decided to boot all pro Trump people from here you ahve every right to do so as this is your website privately owned.

FOX NEWS has every right to not cover any Dem candidates or give them airtime if they choose not to.

FB can take down posts that violate its terms of service.

OAN can support My Pillow Guy and fire anchors who are too liberal...

Not sure why others are having difficulty understanding this...

 

[El OchoCinco]

because that is not the issue.. no one saying you can't take a side...


The issue is when the editorial choices a website makes should take that out of the penumbra of 230 protection from liability.

In other words when a websites editorial choices should put them in the newspaper category instead of an open forum category. (don't tell me there is not an official open forum... I am talking about the difference between the front page of a newspaper vs the comments section.)

Not sure why you all are having difficulty understanding this.

Open forum....newspaper.....blog.... all protected under 1st amendment... not sure why people still having difficulty with this...

If you moderate and edit out content, no one can sue the forum host if a poster is doing the libel and defaming really...If we all post that you kill cats and bang em and Baron wants to leave it up there, you cannot sue Baron.