Florida governor signs bill barring social media companies from blocking political candidates

[TLK Valentine]

I wish more people would agree with that sentiment however, that is irrelevant to making social media companies exempt from being sued.

Sued for what, exactly?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Does that mean a political candidate is exempt from a social media site's TOS?

Show me one Democratic Candidate or Politician banned from Facebook, Twitter, youtube or any of the social media platforms.

Does that mean you are ok with targeting one political group to silence them>

 

[TLK Valentine]

Show me one Democratic Candidate or Politician banned from Facebook, Twitter, youtube or any of the social media platforms.

Does that mean you are ok with targeting one political group to silence them>

I'm sorry, but I think the CF server crashed. The part of your post where you actually addressed my question seems to have been lost.

Here it is again: "Does that mean a political candidate is exempt from a social media site's TOS?"

 

[Sophrosyne]

The problem is social media is protected because of free speech rights in the constitution but when they start banning speech then it is no longer free speech but biased speech. If you restrict speech that isn't illegal on a platform then you aren't being "social" to everyone who signs up but social to some and anti-social to others.
In other words "social media" is akin to the oxymoron "social distancing" in that they aren't a true form of either.
When I was growing up when you were cool and accepted by the popular people they snubbed or distanced themselves from you, and a media site that your opinions they want to distance themselves from are not being social with you but rather.... anti-social.
In other words instead of being an open social media platform you are more of an elite social club where those who don't meet your standards are censored, silenced, banned etc.
Trump was reaching 70 million people on Twitter and they banned him.... they aren't being social to the 75 million voters who listened to him at all.

Today's media platform are just that... and NOT social media platforms.

 

[Desk trauma]

The problem is social media is protected because of free speech rights in the constitution but when they start banning speech then it is no longer free speech but biased speech.

Which is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights as those rights do not include an entitlement to use of others venues or publishing apparatus.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The problem is social media is protected because of free speech rights in the constitution but when they start banning speech then it is no longer free speech but biased speech. If you restrict speech that isn't illegal on a platform then you aren't being "social" to everyone who signs up but social to some and anti-social to others.

Promoting homosexuality is not illegal.

Promoting homosexuality here on CF will get you a warning.

Promoting homosexuality here on CF three times will get you a 30-day ban.

Censorship or not?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Which is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights as those rights do not include an entitlement to use of others venues or publishing apparatus.

If a web site uses laws designed to protect them from lawsuits regarding free speech and they don't allow free speech but instead decide what speech is to be allowed then they are not entitled to protection afforded of such. When some speech is free and others isn't free but banned then a site is a publisher not a social media site.

 

[Sophrosyne]

View attachment 299716


Promoting homosexuality is not illegal.

Promoting homosexuality here on CF will get you a warning.

Promoting homosexuality here on CF three times will get you a 30-day ban.

Censorship or not?

This site isn't social media, the title of this site is. CHRISTIANforums..... not FACEforums or TWITTERforums so it isn't a free speech zone and when I signed up years ago there was a notice that anything that I posted they have rights to and that to me is the site acting like a publisher.... not social media. Does facebook own any idea or writings you make there? I don't think so, but this site says it does although I doubt they would excersize their rights as such.

 

[Desk trauma]

This site isn't social media, the title of this site is. CHRISTIANforums..... not FACEforums or TWITTERforums so it isn't a free speech zone and when I signed up years ago there was a notice that anything that I posted they have rights to and that to me is the site acting like a publisher.... not social media. Does facebook own any idea or writings you make there? I don't think so, but this site says it does although I doubt they would excersize their rights as such.

Ah yes, different because reasons.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Ah yes, different because reasons.

If Facebook and Twitter etc require people to label themselves by party and ideology and then restrict their posting areas accordingly and instead of calling themselves facebook etc call themselves LEFTbook to identify their "beliefs" and restrict posting areas to non leftists there then I would consider them close to the same as far as free speech is concerned.

 

[Desk trauma]

If Facebook and Twitter etc require people to label themselves by party and ideology and then restrict their posting areas accordingly and instead of calling themselves facebook etc call themselves LEFTbook to identify their "beliefs" and restrict posting areas to non leftists there then I would consider them close to the same as far as free speech is concerned.

I must have missed the case that dictated originations must names themselves a certain thing lest they be required to provide a venue for speech they would rather not have on their platform.

 

[Goonie]

This site isn't social media

Erm yes it is unless we are all bots(but me obviously). Some of the measures being talked about in regard to dealing with Facebook etc would cause this site serious issues.

 

[Brihaha]

The problem is social media is protected because of free speech rights in the constitution but when they start banning speech then it is no longer free speech but biased speech. If you restrict speech that isn't illegal on a platform then you aren't being "social" to everyone who signs up but social to some and anti-social to others.
In other words "social media" is akin to the oxymoron "social distancing" in that they aren't a true form of either.
When I was growing up when you were cool and accepted by the popular people they snubbed or distanced themselves from you, and a media site that your opinions they want to distance themselves from are not being social with you but rather.... anti-social.
In other words instead of being an open social media platform you are more of an elite social club where those who don't meet your standards are censored, silenced, banned etc.
Trump was reaching 70 million people on Twitter and they banned him.... they aren't being social to the 75 million voters who listened to him at all.

Today's media platform are just that... and NOT social media platforms.

The very fact that Trump's lies undermining democracy were reaching 70 million tweeters was dangerous to society and violated the terms of service. Twitter was being socially responsible when banning trump. Also protecting future profits. If they allowed trump to continue tearing up the fabric of American society America wouldn't be the United States anymore and twitter would certainly lose money. It behooves the entire world to restrict divisive political lies. Uncontrolled passion is quite dangerous.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Thanks to this law, I’m winning the lottery away from moving to Florida, running for political office, and filling this site with so much porn it will make Pornhub blush. Don’t worry, it will be ethically sourced. In fact most of it will be written word because I want to encourage literacy. And if this website tries to kick me off, I’ll have them fined into oblivion. Thank you Governor Ron.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Erm yes it is unless we are all bots(but me obviously). Some of the measures being talked about in regard to dealing with Facebook etc would cause this site serious issues.

I agree.... but I very seriously doubt the left wants to do anything as they have profited greatly from the current conditions in the media pretty much have decided conservatives opinions are worthless and should not be heard.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The very fact that Trump's lies undermining democracy were reaching 70 million tweeters was dangerous to society and violated the terms of service. Twitter was being socially responsible when banning trump. Also protecting future profits. If they allowed trump to continue tearing up the fabric of American society America wouldn't be the United States anymore and twitter would certainly lose money. It behooves the entire world to restrict divisive political lies. Uncontrolled passion is quite dangerous.

Then we should ban leftism entirely.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How does the law define social media platforms?

Would Christian Forums constitute a social media platform under the law?

Does this mean that someone from Florida can now come on here and break the rules concerning certain political topics and opinions? So like, if a Floridian decided to start a pro-gay marriage thread, then the admins/mods can't do anything yes? No?

Purely hypothetical--I don't live in Florida and I have no compulsion to be a brat and stir trouble.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TLK Valentine]

This site isn't social media, the title of this site is. CHRISTIANforums..... not FACEforums or TWITTERforums so it isn't a free speech zone and when I signed up years ago there was a notice that anything that I posted they have rights to and that to me is the site acting like a publisher.... not social media.

Explain this to me: Does putting "Christian" in the title make this somehow "anti-social" media?

Because your explanation makes no sense.

Does facebook own any idea or writings you make there? I don't think so, but this site says it does although I doubt they would excersize their rights as such.

Does this site say that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How does the law define social media platforms?

Would Christian Forums constitute a social media platform under the law?

Apparently not, because.... Christian.

Does this mean that someone from Florida can now come on here and break the rules concerning certain political topics and opinions? So like, if a Floridian decided to start a pro-gay marriage thread, then the admins/mods can't do anything yes? No?

Only if they're a political candidate.

And let's face it, only if they're a Republican.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Explain this to me: Does putting "Christian" in the title make this somehow "anti-social" media?

Because your explanation makes no sense.



Does this site say that?

Then I'm wasting my time if you cannot tell the difference between protected free speech and censored no protected free speech platforms then I don't know how to explain it to you.