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

[TLK Valentine]

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

That requires resources and talent.

People with either of those are usually too busy to whine.

 

[Brihaha]

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?

Perhaps they are afraid of those platforms and their constituents who post on parler and telegram? Those people are kind of extremist over there. Lunatic Fringe if you will.

 

[Brihaha]

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.

Those corrupt referees in congress are only now realizing that hahaha. They have boxed themselves in by their own actions. Poor victims.....

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

ChristianForums is also a business;haven't you noticed all the advertising?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In spirit, I don't see such a measure as a bad thing.

It's a tricky situation we're in.

We have social media platforms which have basically become the new 'public square' where the overwhelming majority go for getting their information...

But that 'public square' is privately owned and in the hands of a select few...

Blocking a political candidate on a prevalent social media platform is tantamount to saying "This particular candidate isn't allowed to buy ad time, but this other one is"

If left unrestricted, Jack Dorsey and Mark Z could easily dictate who wins elections.
(that's especially true when they're on good terms with other major entities that can squash competing platforms)

The "we're a private entity, we can do whatever we want" only goes so far...and that becomes exponentially more true when they basically have a quasi-monopoly.

That sentiment would be considered unconscionable if applied in other areas.

To my liberal friends and my fellow "just a tad left of center" peeps who see DeSantis's proposal being "laughed out of court" as a win...based on the fact that they're private entities...

Remember how upset you were when there was that one baker (in a city with 12 other bakeries perfectly willing to bake the cake) refusing to bake cakes for gay people? Now, imagine there were only 2 bakery companies in the entire country, and they both embraced that problematic homophobic ideal (and had the money and political/corporate stroke to squash other upstart bakeries from even forming) Would you still be defending the "they're a private entity, they can block whoever they want from using their services" notion?

I think not...

And there's not a doubt in my mind that if Parlor and Locals were the two predominant social media companies (and not Facebook and Twitter), and they were pulling the same thing, that people would be up in arms about undue election influencing.

People need to be consistent here... If you understand why oil companies and prescription drug companies having the kind of power/influence they presents certain problems, then you need to be willing to acknowledge that those same problems exist for any industry.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

In spirit, I don't see such a measure as a bad thing.

It's a tricky situation we're in.

We have social media platforms which have basically become the new 'public square' where the overwhelming majority go for getting their information...

But that 'public square' is privately owned and in the hands of a select few...

Blocking a political candidate on a prevalent social media platform is tantamount to saying "This particular candidate isn't allowed to buy ad time, but this other one is"

If left unrestricted, Jack Dorsey and Mark Z could easily dictate who wins elections.
(that's especially true when they're on good terms with other major entities that can squash competing platforms)

The "we're a private entity, we can do whatever we want" only goes so far...and that becomes exponentially more true when they basically have a quasi-monopoly.

That sentiment would be considered unconscionable if applied in other areas.

To my liberal friends and my fellow "just a tad left of center" peeps who see DeSantis's proposal being "laughed out of court" as a win...based on the fact that they're private entities...

Remember how upset you were when there was that one baker (in a city with 12 other bakeries perfectly willing to bake the cake) refusing to bake cakes for gay people? Now, imagine there were only 2 bakery companies in the entire country, and they both embraced that problematic homophobic ideal (and had the money and political/corporate stroke to squash other upstart bakeries from even forming) Would you still be defending the "they're a private entity, they can block whoever they want from using their services" notion?

I think not...

And there's not a doubt in my mind that if Parlor and Locals were the two predominant social media companies (and not Facebook and Twitter), and they were pulling the same thing, that people would be up in arms about undue election influencing.

People need to be consistent here... If you understand why oil companies and prescription drug companies having the kind of power/influence they presents certain problems, then you need to be willing to acknowledge that those same problems exist for any industry.

You are trying to equate political candidacy to gay rights and it falls flat.

Gays are a protected class. Read up on what that is if you don't know: Protected group - Wikipedia

You'll see that political candidates are not listed as a protected group. Neither are people of a particular political group. I realize you are invested in the conservative political agenda but that still does not make you or your candidates a protected class.

It's really funny to see conservatives now grasping at straws so soon after their big warnings and ultimatums. Those of the "take responsibility for your situation" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" set are now complaining of "unfair treatment" and going so far as to have their politicians taking this to court. From claiming to take action and responsibility to now pleading their gripes to the public and the courts as victims.

Why don't you and all those on the right follow your own prescription for success? Make your Parler site and MypillowBook site and win on the open market against FaceBook and Twitter. Nothing is stopping any of you. Don't you know if you work hard enough you can do it? If you need the education or training to do it them go back to school, go to college, go get the training. If you work hard enough and do the right things you can do it. The right should stop blaming non-existent problems and just take responsibility, work hard, and accomplish their goals. Looking to nanny government to make FaceBook and Twitter do things for you isn't going to work.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

No clue what you are talking about honestly.

Do you think only conservatives get banned or suspended on Facebook?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TLK Valentine]

In spirit, I don't see such a measure as a bad thing.

It's a tricky situation we're in.

We have social media platforms which have basically become the new 'public square' where the overwhelming majority go for getting their information...

But that 'public square' is privately owned and in the hands of a select few...

Blocking a political candidate on a prevalent social media platform is tantamount to saying "This particular candidate isn't allowed to buy ad time, but this other one is"

If left unrestricted, Jack Dorsey and Mark Z could easily dictate who wins elections.
(that's especially true when they're on good terms with other major entities that can squash competing platforms)

The "we're a private entity, we can do whatever we want" only goes so far...and that becomes exponentially more true when they basically have a quasi-monopoly.

That sentiment would be considered unconscionable if applied in other areas.

To my liberal friends and my fellow "just a tad left of center" peeps who see DeSantis's proposal being "laughed out of court" as a win...based on the fact that they're private entities...

Remember how upset you were when there was that one baker (in a city with 12 other bakeries perfectly willing to bake the cake) refusing to bake cakes for gay people? Now, imagine there were only 2 bakery companies in the entire country, and they both embraced that problematic homophobic ideal (and had the money and political/corporate stroke to squash other upstart bakeries from even forming) Would you still be defending the "they're a private entity, they can block whoever they want from using their services" notion?

I think not...

And there's not a doubt in my mind that if Parlor and Locals were the two predominant social media companies (and not Facebook and Twitter), and they were pulling the same thing, that people would be up in arms about undue election influencing.

People need to be consistent here... If you understand why oil companies and prescription drug companies having the kind of power/influence they presents certain problems, then you need to be willing to acknowledge that those same problems exist for any industry.

You raise a well-spoken and legitimate argument... how it got here I'll never know....

But there is an important distinction here... even if political affiliation were a protected status under the law (and it isn't), the people who are being booted off them are not being booted off because of that affiliation.

They are being banned because those platforms -- like this one -- have explicit Terms of Service, and clear penalties for violating them... which the perpetrators did with impunity.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.... the gist is the same: no racism, no porn, no encouraging illegal or violent acts. Break the rules, face the consequences -- that goes for you, me, Donald, President Biden...anyone.

Now, if it could be demonstrated that one side is being punished more than the other, and not simply because one side is committing more infractions than the other, then we have an issue that needs to be addressed. AFAIK, that has not been the case.

For example, Donald was booted off Facebook and Twitter for his continued support and endorsement of the violent January 6 riot. Anyone who followed his postings with any regularity (the man had more flagged tweets than electoral votes) would think that had he not been POTUS, his account would have been suspended months, if not years ago. He was given ample warnings to abide by the rules of the social media sites he signed up to; he chose not to.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It should also be noted that in the past, when certain controversial and divisive politicians (Donald) took to Twitter to go on tirades or personal attacks against people and corporations that displeased him, the common refrain among his supporters was something along the lines of, "Well, he's still a private citizen; he has a right to express his opinion..."

Well, you can't have it both ways -- if he's a private citizen like the rest of us, then he needs to follow the rules like the rest of us... and when he doesn't, he has to face the consequences like the rest of us.

 

[lasthero]

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.

You know, this isn't even remotely true.

There are many - many - prominent conservatives on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube. Ben Shapiro, Steve Crowder, even Majorie Taylor Greene's nutty self. These are unashamed, unambiguous, 100% right-wing personalities, and they're quite outspoken on these platforms.

The idea that you have to 'speak leftism' or be banned off social media isn't true. It's just not.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

No clue what you are talking about honestly.

Do you think only conservatives get banned or suspended on Facebook?

-CryptoLutheran

One of my VERY liberal friends is always getting 3 day suspensions of FB. Since she is Jewish, we tease her that we are always waiting for her 3 day resurrection from the FB tomb

 

[Sophrosyne]

You know, this isn't even remotely true.

There are many - many - prominent conservatives on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube. Ben Shapiro, Steve Crowder, even Majorie Taylor Greene's nutty self. These are unashamed, unambiguous, 100% right-wing personalities, and they're quite outspoken on these platforms.

The idea that you have to 'speak leftism' or be banned off social media isn't true. It's just not.

I bet for every leftist banned there is a dozen conservatives banned from the platform. We don't hear about anyone on the left banned that is outspoken..... but plenty on the right. The reason for a lot of the banning is those on the right standing up to what they lefts says/believes and instead of confronting what the right has to say and let the people decide for themselves they play nanny and ban anyone that says stuff that they don't want others to hear. Essentially treating their own people there (leftists) as children that they put in a lock on their TV to not allow them to watch adult rated movies.

 

[ViaCrucis]

One of my VERY liberal friends is always getting 3 day suspensions of FB. Since she is Jewish, we tease her that we are always waiting for her 3 day resurrection from the FB tomb

I was thinking the same about an old friend from school that I'm friends with on FB, they are regularly getting suspended. And they certainly aren't conservative. On the other hand, my very conservative family members and various family friends who have found me on FB over the years, I've seen them post all manner of things without ever getting in trouble--including various conspiracy theories and straight up insane lies.

I also have friends who are in MLMs and are regularly trying to push the pyramid schemes they are in onto everyone on their friends list. I don't know if that's relevant to this discussion, but I did want to complain about it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I bet for every leftist banned there is a dozen conservatives banned from the platform. We don't hear about anyone on the left banned that is outspoken..... but plenty on the right. The reason for a lot of the banning is those on the right standing up to what they lefts says/believes and instead of confronting what the right has to say and let the people decide for themselves they play nanny and ban anyone that says stuff that they don't want others to hear. Essentially treating their own people there (leftists) as children that they put in a lock on their TV to not allow them to watch adult rated movies.

About three(ish?) years ago there was a pretty loud outcry among LGBTQA+ content creators on Youtube, as Youtube seemed to be flagging and removing videos discussing LGBTQA+ topics. Maybe the reason you think this is somehow something targeting conservatives is because that's just your personal bubble of experience and so you aren't aware of when it happens in other communities and demographics because those aren't part of your social experience bubble.

There's also the case that we haven't had left wing politicians, including ones who are sitting presidents, encouraging and endorsing thousands of terrorists attacking the Capitol and putting the lives of every Congressperson, R, D, or I, in danger.

I'm just saying, there's a pretty good chance that if a Democrat was promoting a terrorist coup of the nation's legislature that Twitter would throw them away too. It's just that hasn't happened, and I'm not aware of any Republican ever having done it either until Forty-Five came along and took a massive feculent mess on American democracy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TLK Valentine]

I bet for every leftist banned there is a dozen conservatives banned from the platform.

Which, if it were true, would say a lot about which side considers self-control to be a virtue.

We don't hear about anyone on the left banned that is outspoken..... but plenty on the right.

There's something to be said for charm school.

The reason for a lot of the banning is those on the right

...don't think the rules apply to them.

But let's humor you and continue:

standing up to what they lefts says/believes and instead of confronting what the right has to say and let the people decide for themselves they play nanny and ban anyone that says stuff that they don't want others to hear.

The only way they could do that is if they owned the platform they were banning you on... do they?

And if so... why doesn't anyone on the Right own such a platform?

 

[lasthero]

I bet for every leftist banned there is a dozen conservatives banned from the platform.

You bet?

Do you have anything to actually support that bet? Not your feelings on the matter, but actual, hard data?

We don't hear about anyone on the left banned that is outspoken.....

Well, let me fix that for you.

Facebook purges left-wing pages and individuals

The reason for a lot of the banning is those on the right standing up to what they lefts says/believes

Ben Shapiro doesn't do that? Steven Crowder doesn't do that? Tim Pool? Jesse Lee Peterson? PragerU? Stefan Molyneux? Jordan Peterson?

I could go on, give you a nice a long list of conservative personalities who are quite popular, do not hold back on their views, and yet somehow have managed to not get banned off places like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. How can they stick around and be so open?

 

[durangodawood]

Bravo Governor DeSantis!

He was correct on covid and the draconian restrictions and he is right on censorship.

So if I become a political candidate can I violate all the Christian Forums rules and not get banned?

durangodawood for dogcatcher!

 

[Sophrosyne]

So if I become a political candidate can I violate all the Christian Forums rules and not get banned?

durangodawood for dogcatcher!

Try it and see

 

[durangodawood]

None of you people came to my rescue when I was banned from here before.

 

[Desk trauma]

And the first challenge to this nonsense has been filed.