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

[Desk trauma]

Then we should ban leftism entirely.

Well, turns out the concerns about free speech were hollow rhetoric.

 

[Desk trauma]

If you make rules and change them to penalize one group and help another and enforce them unfairly then rules are not really rules but essentially you are making yourself a corrupt referee and the gamblers are profiting from an obviously fixed game.

So?

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you make rules and change them to penalize one group and help another and enforce them unfairly then rules are not really rules but essentially you are making yourself a corrupt referee and the gamblers are profiting from an obviously fixed game.

The rules on this very forum have undergone many changes over the years, making certain topics, opinions, and forms of speech unacceptable. There are opinions on a subject that you are free to speak; but my opinions are not allowed to be expressed. I accept that these are the rules, and so I follow them.

Why, exactly, is this a problem when Facebook does it, but okay when Christian Forums does it?

Explain this to me like I'm five.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lasthero]

If you make rules and change them to penalize one group and help another and enforce them unfairly then rules are not really rules but essentially you are making yourself a corrupt referee and the gamblers are profiting from an obviously fixed game.

Even if I accept that’s what going on, so what? Moderators do stuff like that all the time. I got kicked off a writing forum a few years ago because the moderator didn’t like me giving his stuff bad reviews. That wasn’t against the rules and he was a jerk to do it, but it wasn’t like he didn’t have the right to kick me off his own forum. I just went to another, no big deal.

Also, does this proposed legislation apply to political candidates from other countries, too? Does it apply to any candidate running for any office?

 

[Sophrosyne]

The rules on this very forum have undergone many changes over the years, making certain topics, opinions, and forms of speech unacceptable. There are opinions on a subject that you are free to speak; but my opinions are not allowed to be expressed. I accept that these are the rules, and so I follow them.

Why, exactly, is this a problem when Facebook does it, but okay when Christian Forums does it?

Explain this to me like I'm five.

-CryptoLutheran

The rules here are inline with Christianity and people know that when they sign up and people have labels that describe themselves and limit their "speech" to certain areas and areas have notices of what can and cannot be said. Now if you see any Christian group being treated unfairly you are welcome to point it out but in FB they don't have labels and don't restrict areas of posting and rules for those areas but instead they just simply censor what they don't like and ban people that they don't like. I would like to see you say that about CF as I see plenty of people here constantly I don't really care for in the forums and they say all sorts of things I don't like and they are still here many of them so I don't really see much similarity. I think the censoring/banning here is fairly consistent for a Christian site... if anything too lenient compared than most I've been on in the last 25 years.
Comparing CF to FB is essentially like comparing a grape to a sack of manure.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Even if I accept that’s what going on, so what? Moderators do stuff like that all the time. I got kicked off a writing forum a few years ago because the moderator didn’t like me giving his stuff bad reviews. That wasn’t against the rules and he was a jerk to do it, but it wasn’t like he didn’t have the right to kick me off his own forum. I just went to another, no big deal.

Also, does this proposed legislation apply to political candidates from other countries, too? Does it apply to any candidate running for any office?

I haven't read the law..... likely it is based on candidates that they (Floridians) can vote for in elections as it would be a little silly as a state to try and protect citizens rights of other states, they have that responsibility and also they have the power to do so.

 

[Desk trauma]

I haven't read the law..... likely it is based on candidates that they (Floridians) can vote for in elections as it would be a little silly as a state to try and protect citizens rights of other states, they have that responsibility and also they have the power to do so.

Where does one find this right to make use of others online platforms? I missed that part of the constitution.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The rules here are inline with Christianity and people know that when they sign up and people have labels that describe themselves and limit their "speech" to certain areas and areas have notices of what can and cannot be said. Now if you see any Christian group being treated unfairly you are welcome to point it out but in FB they don't have labels and don't restrict areas of posting and rules for those areas but instead they just simply censor what they don't like and ban people that they don't like. I would like to see you say that about CF as I see plenty of people here constantly I don't really care for in the forums and they say all sorts of things I don't like and they are still here many of them so I don't really see much similarity. I think the censoring/banning here is fairly consistent for a Christian site... if anything too lenient compared than most I've been on in the last 25 years.
Comparing CF to FB is essentially like comparing a grape to a sack of manure.

I'm a Christian. As a Christian I am not allowed to express my Christian opinions on certain topics, as a Christian.

Explain to me again why it's okay that CF censors me, a Christian on Christian Forums, but it's not okay for Facebook or Twitter to censor people who violate their rules of conduct and terms of service?

So far you are doing an incredibly bad job at explaining this. And I suspect that's because there's nothing to be explained. It makes perfect sense in your mind that certain speech should be censored on a Christian site, because you agree with that censorship; but censorship by another platform that isn't a Christian site is wrong because you don't agree with that censorship.

All I can get from what you say is that you are arbitrarily picking and choosing when it's okay for a platform to censor, based upon your own feelings on the matter. Which makes this whole "free speech" rhetoric little more than bumfodder.

If I'm wrong, then make a better argument.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ArmenianJohn]

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


Florida’s New Social Media Law Will Be Laughed Out of Court

So if this goes through then the Mypillow guy will have to allow blashpemy on his social media site.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Where does one find this right to make use of others online platforms? I missed that part of the constitution.

FB does is a business, they are doing more than just being a social platform they are essentially doing business with people in Florida and that state has the right to regulate such. Now how they would regulate such as FB I don't know for sure it could be complicated and likely end up in the courts.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

The rules here are inline with Christianity and people know that when they sign up and people have labels that describe themselves and limit their "speech" to certain areas and areas have notices of what can and cannot be said. Now if you see any Christian group being treated unfairly you are welcome to point it out but in FB they don't have labels and don't restrict areas of posting and rules for those areas but instead they just simply censor what they don't like and ban people that they don't like. I would like to see you say that about CF as I see plenty of people here constantly I don't really care for in the forums and they say all sorts of things I don't like and they are still here many of them so I don't really see much similarity. I think the censoring/banning here is fairly consistent for a Christian site... if anything too lenient compared than most I've been on in the last 25 years.
Comparing CF to FB is essentially like comparing a grape to a sack of manure.

So if you had a blog and someone put in the comments remarks that you don't want to appear on your blog, even in the open comments, you believe you should be compelled to leave them there?

As for CF, it doesn't matter what their reason for their rules are - the site belongs to them and they can make whatever rules they want for whatever reason. Even censoring what people say here and even booting people if they want to.

It sounds like you're saying you want Nanny Government to stick its nose into things and make the rules for private individuals and companies. Do you want Nanny Government to tell CF it can't censor people also?

 

[ViaCrucis]

FB does is a business, they are doing more than just being a social platform they are essentially doing business with people in Florida and that state has the right to regulate such. Now how they would regulate such as FB I don't know for sure it could be complicated and likely end up in the courts.

Question, do only social media businesses have to provide their service to everyone? Or does this apply to other businesses, like, oh I don't know, bakeries?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lasthero]

So if this goes through then the Mypillow guy will have to allow blashpemy on his social media site.

Well, assuming it ever becomes the social media site he promised it to be.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I honestly don’t understand why there’s such a push from conservatives to use platforms that they think are run by people who are biased against them.

Just use Parler and Rumble. Their platforms pretty much made for you and your political tastes. Why fight so hard to give business to people you think hate you?

"How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"
Winston thought. "By making him suffer," he said.
"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?"

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, turns out the concerns about free speech were hollow rhetoric.

Was there ever any doubt? Sooner or later, they always slip up and say the silent part out loud.

That's why they hate Social Media so much... whatever you say, no matter how much you try to deny it later, the Internet doesn't forget and never forgives...

 

[Desk trauma]

FB does is a business, they are doing more than just being a social platform they are essentially doing business with people in Florida and that state has the right to regulate such. Now how they would regulate such as FB I don't know for sure it could be complicated and likely end up in the courts.

I look forward to CF being forced to reverse bans for rules violations because Florida said so.

How does one establish residency in Florida...BRB

 

[Sophrosyne]

I'm a Christian. As a Christian I am not allowed to express my Christian opinions on certain topics, as a Christian.

Explain to me again why it's okay that CF censors me, a Christian on Christian Forums, but it's not okay for Facebook or Twitter to censor people who violate their rules of conduct and terms of service?

So far you are doing an incredibly bad job at explaining this. And I suspect that's because there's nothing to be explained. It makes perfect sense in your mind that certain speech should be censored on a Christian site, because you agree with that censorship; but censorship by another platform that isn't a Christian site is wrong because you don't agree with that censorship.

All I can get from what you say is that you are arbitrarily picking and choosing when it's okay for a platform to censor, based upon your own feelings on the matter. Which makes this whole "free speech" rhetoric little more than bumfodder.

If I'm wrong, then make a better argument.

-CryptoLutheran

Nope..... you win FB is fair and 70 million conservatives have to speak leftism or they should be fairly banned and lose access to business accounts and people who have lies floating around FB about them should just suck it up because they have the right to slander and lie they are protected because they are banning and censoring "in good faith". I never knew exactly what the left thought about "in good faith" till now.

 

[Desk trauma]

Nope..... you win FB is fair and 70 million conservatives have to speak leftism or they should be fairly banned and lose access to business accounts and people who have lies floating around FB about them should just suck it up because they have the right to slander and lie they are protected because they are banning and censoring "in good faith". I never knew exactly what the left thought about "in good faith" till now.

If you're so upset with how Facebook operates, why attempt to disrupt them running off such a large portion of their US customer base? Such a move would help see them dethroned from their spot as the 800 lbs gorilla in the social media sphere and the other platforms that are more agreeable to those 70 million users could take the market share from them.

....or is the free market rhetoric as hollow as the free speech rhetoric?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Nope..... you win FB is fair and 70 million conservatives have to speak leftism or they should be fairly banned and lose access to business accounts and people who have lies floating around FB about them should just suck it up because they have the right to slander and lie they are protected because they are banning and censoring "in good faith". I never knew exactly what the left thought about "in good faith" till now.

This is all huffing and puffing - no substance. You didn't answer the question presented to you and instead gave a rant about how unfair things are against conservatives, again with no proof, just pure rant and emotion.

As for "slander", it is a real tort and there is legal remedy for it, so anyone who has been slandered whether it be on FaceBook or anywhere else can seek that remedy in a court of law. Can you give me an example of a conservative who has successfully filed and won a slander or libel suit against FaceBook? If it's such a common thing then there should be many examples, making it easy for you to provide just one or two... We'll wait... (but not holding our breath, lol)

 

[pgp_protector]

The owners of any site, can make whatever rules they want, and enforce them however they want.

If you don't like how they run the site, start your own.