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

SimplyMe said:

Again, fine. Of course, then you get back to the issue that Facebook and Twitter can create their own policies. If they only want to allow liberal speech, then that is their right -- of course they'd lose much of their "reach," as what makes them so large is that we get millions of people on both sides discussing issues.

The danger that I think you miss, if you remove the ability of Twitter and Facebook to control the content, then you also open the door to doing it to all media -- so (if he were alive) -- we could legislate what Rush Limbaugh can do with his show, since he had a similar "monopoly," and then you can start using the government to "censor" what can be said by news organizations like Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax (since we can lump all conservative cable news as a "monopoly" despite there being multiple companies) and the Washington Post and NY Times in print media for their "monopoly."

Either we allow free speech, including the right of companies to determine what speech they choose to allow and promote, or we run the risk of killing free speech.

Click to expand...

So then if they can make their own policies regarding what content they want to allow, does that mean you're cool with them allowing Russian disinformation on the platform, and allowing people to post false things about vaccines?

After all, if they're not confined to be neutral, then they can simply allow people to post whatever they want in order to increase ad revenue.

hislegacy said:

Facebook, Twitter have both had multiple appearances before Congress and committees -

Click to expand...

As did a number of Americans once upon a time thanks to Senator McCarthy's "list."

Meanwhile, what are the American laws against duopolies?

SimplyMe said:

The Supreme Court disagrees with you here, as they have ruled that social media sites are not "state actors."

Also, if we use your logic, almost any newspaper would be a "state actor" as they used to provide the information about voting that social media now provides. Yet no one is going to claim the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any other newspaper is a "state actor" -- despite being the traditional "political speech forum" that you are claiming is being replaced by social media.

The key point here, typically to be a "state actor" they actually have to be working for the government, or at least providing a function that the government typically provides. So, for example, a private prison is a state actor. To get back to the Supreme Court case you were talking about, a sidewalk on private property -- since it is filling the need of public right of ways -- is something of a "state actor." Though, to be clear, while the sidewalk is considered a "state actor," the business is not; they merely have to provide public access (including protests) on the sidewalks on their property.

Merely providing voter information is not, by itself, a "government activity." If they were providing a polling place, the part of the business that was a polling place would be a "state actor." Providing a public service, like helping people find where to vote, is considered a public service, not an action of the state. Kind of like selling advertising is a "service" but does not mean the forum (newspaper, social media, etc) is endorsing or part of the business they are advertising.

Click to expand...

That wasn't a supreme court ruling...

https://casetext.com/case/quigley-v-yelp-inc-1

Looks like that was just a district court ruling, and was in 2017, which was prior to the government heavily leveraging facebook for things like dissemination about voter information, requesting that they crack down more on election misinformation, and prior to the pandemic when Facebook wasn't entering into joint-partnerships with public health departments.

Per a 1982 ruling
If the government merely acquiesces in the performance of an act by a private individual or organization it is not state action, but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982))

ThatRobGuy said:

So then if they can make their own policies regarding what content they want to allow, does that mean you're cool with them allowing Russian disinformation on the platform, and allowing people to post false things about vaccines?

After all, if they're not confined to be neutral, then they can simply allow people to post whatever they want in order to increase ad revenue.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "cool with them?" I mean, you often see them promoted on Fox News (typically the talking heads), OAN, and Newsmax do it, so why shouldn't Facebook?

ThatRobGuy said:

That wasn't a supreme court ruling...

https://casetext.com/case/quigley-v-yelp-inc-1

Looks like that was just a district court ruling, and was in 2017, which was prior to the government heavily leveraging facebook for things like dissemination about voter information, requesting that they crack down more on election misinformation, and prior to the pandemic when Facebook wasn't entering into joint-partnerships with public health departments.

Per a 1982 ruling
If the government merely acquiesces in the performance of an act by a private individual or organization it is not state action, but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982))

Click to expand...

It was a Supreme Court ruling in the sense that the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the case.

And for all the blather by Republicans against "socialism!" that appears to be exactly what they are calling for with Facebook and Twitter. And, please, exactly when did the government "coerce, influence, or encourage" Facebook to do anything? Yes, some politicians, such as Congresspeople or Senators, encouraged Facebook to do some things, but that is not the US government. While Senators and members of Congress do have influence, they don't speak for the US government.

hislegacy said:

That is what many are calling for.

Click to expand...

So you're admitting that this is something "many are calling for" now and didn't call for before when they could have done something about it before their beloved dear leader got banned from social media? Funny how it's only a problem now and wasn't previously. Funny how they failed to accomplish this before and all of a sudden think they will. And funny how nobody has challenged Twitter or Facebook with anti-trust violations in court even to this very minute.

Actually, it's not funny - it makes perfect sense. Twitter and Facebook have done and are doing nothing wrong. Conservatives hate them because they don't allow conservatives to break their rules just because they are conservatives so now conservatives are making wild accusations against them. Watch this go absolutely nowhere except right down the same toilet that Parler and MyPillowBook have gone.

If you hate Twitter and Facebook then join one of those other two platforms. It's a capitalist economy and nobody is forcing you or Trump or MyPillow guy or anyone else to use Twitter or Facebook. Stop playing the victim, take responsibility for your situation and choose a different provider for that service instead of saying you want nanny government to force private business to do what you want because your feelings were hurt by them.

SimplyMe said:

It was a Supreme Court ruling in the sense that the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the case.

And for all the blather by Republicans against "socialism!" that appears to be exactly what they are calling for with Facebook and Twitter. And, please, exactly when did the government "coerce, influence, or encourage" Facebook to do anything? Yes, some politicians, such as Congresspeople or Senators, encouraged Facebook to do some things, but that is not the US government. While Senators and members of Congress do have influence, they don't speak for the US government.

Click to expand...

So I would say that would be a blatant moving of the goalposts.

1) Saying "it was a supreme court ruling in the sense that the supreme court saw no reason to hear the case" is not the definition of a ruling.

I can't speak for republicans, but I've often criticized their misuse of the word socialism...much like I'll criticize your misuse of the word here. Mandating certain levels of neutrality on a non-rivalrous good/service (that has become a primary vehicle for speech, and has been enlisted by government entities to serve various purposes - normally overseen by public entities) has nothing to do with a centrally planned economy nor does it have anything to do with the means of production.

It should be noted, that both republicans and democrats have been hypocritical about these issues depending on what sides the alleged parties are on.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/sup...cide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html

In the above cited case, the outcome was that it was the conservative justices holding the opinion they're a private entity, therefore are under no obligation uphold free speech fairly and shouldn't be constrained by the rules of a state actor, and it was the liberal justices dissenting from that opinion suggesting that they should be.

2) Did you not see the issue in your statement here?
"And, please, exactly when did the government "coerce, influence, or encourage" Facebook to do anything?"
In your very next sentence:
"Yes, some politicians, such as Congresspeople or Senators, encouraged Facebook to do some things"

...saying "congresspeople and senators don't speak for the government" is an absurd statement. They're members of one of the three branches of federal government, and have literally urged them to make certain changes in the context of a senate hearing.

If a senator making statements and urging changes, while acting in their official capacity as a senator, in some instances - in an official senate hearing doesn't constitute "speaking for the government", I don't know what does.


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/fac...-to-crack-down-on-vaccine-misinformation.html

U.S. senators urge Facebook, Twitter for tighter checks before Georgia runoff election

SimplyMe said:

Depends on what you mean by "cool with them?" I mean, you often see them promoted on Fox News (typically the talking heads), OAN, and Newsmax do it, so why shouldn't Facebook?

Click to expand...

That would be a question for Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Blumenthal, and all of the other senators who've written letters to Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube asking them to crack down on misinformation on their platforms, and asking them for transparency in their systems for flagging and fact-checking.

If I had to speculate, it's because the aforementioned senators recognize that there are a few key distinctions between the television entities you mention, and the social media giants.

1) TV networks are already under the regulatory oversight of an independent government agency (the FCC)
2) TV networks don't present themselves as open platforms, but rather publishers (as they control their own content)...thereby, there are legal outlets available when misinformation is disseminated. For instance, Dominion had the legal recourse of suing Newmax when they were pushing the misinformation about rigged voting machines. They can't sue twitter when "MagaWarrior4079" posts it in a tweet and it ends up getting on Twitter's platform.

ArmenianJohn said:

So you're admitting that this is something "many are calling for" now and didn't call for before when they could have done something about it before their beloved dear leader got banned from social media? Funny how it's only a problem now and wasn't previously. Funny how they failed to accomplish this before and all of a sudden think they will. And funny how nobody has challenged Twitter or Facebook with anti-trust violations in court even to this very minute.

Actually, it's not funny - it makes perfect sense. Twitter and Facebook have done and are doing nothing wrong. Conservatives hate them because they don't allow conservatives to break their rules just because they are conservatives so now conservatives are making wild accusations against them. Watch this go absolutely nowhere except right down the same toilet that Parler and MyPillowBook have gone.

If you hate Twitter and Facebook then join one of those other two platforms. It's a capitalist economy and nobody is forcing you or Trump or MyPillow guy or anyone else to use Twitter or Facebook. Stop playing the victim, take responsibility for your situation and choose a different provider for that service instead of saying you want nanny government to force private business to do what you want because your feelings were hurt by them.

Click to expand...

You got all that in seven words posted!

That is amazing. Missing it as bad as you did is not, but that is amazing.

hislegacy said:

You got all that in seven words posted!

Click to expand...

In all fairness, it was pretty obvious.

hislegacy said:

You got all that in seven words posted!

That is amazing. Missing it as bad as you did is not, but that is amazing.

Click to expand...

Seven words as well as all your previous posts.

I didn't miss anything. Other than all the answers you've chosen not to give to my questions although I've answered yours.

You're only a victim because you choose to be.

ArmenianJohn said:

Seven words as well as all your previous posts.

I didn't miss anything. Other than all the answers you've chosen not to give to my questions although I've answered yours.

You're only a victim because you choose to be.

Click to expand...

I’m no victim and if you think I am, well.... you are incorrect.

The times that I answer your questions is when you get the premise of the question correct.

The diatribe written over seven words is a prime example. How about asking a question based on what you believe, showing why you believe it and I will respond in like fashion.

hislegacy said:

I’m no victim and if you think I am, well.... you are incorrect.

Click to expand...

So you're agreeing that there was no voting fraud? Because it sounds like you're sticking to your story that there has been voting fraud and that it victimizes you in that it's unfair for it to not be investigated over and over. Which is it? If you're not a victim then what are you upset about?

hislegacy said:

The times that I answer your questions is when you get the premise of the question correct.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. And i don't do that with you. I answer your questions even when you don't "get the premise of the question correct". Because it's easy enough to correct you as well as answer your question. Well, for me it's easy enough. Apparently, you find that too difficult for yourself to do, or perhaps you don't find it difficult but you lack the courtesy to do it. I'll bet it's a combination of inability and lack of courtesy.

hislegacy said:

The diatribe written over seven words is a prime example. How about asking a question based on what you believe, showing why you believe it and I will respond in like fashion.

Click to expand...

It wasn't over just seven words, as I explained before. Again you demonstrate you have a comprehension inability or unwillingness (and again probably some of both).

Why not be a man of your word and follow through on what you say? Why say "answer my questions and then I'll answer yours" and then after i answer your questions dodge and refuse to answer mine? Again, it can only be that you're incapable and/or unwilling to do what you said you'd do.

Do you know what a lie is? A lie is when you say you will do something and then you willfully refuse to do it.

ArmenianJohn said:

So you're agreeing that there was no voting fraud? Because it sounds like you're sticking to your story that there has been voting fraud and that it victimizes you in that it's unfair for it to not be investigated over and over. Which is it? If you're not a victim then what are you upset about?

Click to expand...

Presumption #1
Where did I EVER say there was or was not voter fraud - Link please

I have discussed some of the aspects of it, but have never stated a definitive position on it because it has been proven/disproven clearly enough for me. (please don't - fight the urge to go off topic. I am only using it as an explanation.)

Presumption #2
Where did I EVER express the thought or saying I was upset about anything anywhere? That my friend is your presumption.

Debating a topic and defending your position is not emotional, it's not a matter of feelings. Victimization is just another way of saying One cannot intellectually defend a position, so we have to consider it some type of attack.

No, my friend I do not feel victimized by you or anyone on this thread or forum.

hislegacy said:

Presumption #1
Where did I EVER say there was or was not voter fraud - Link please

I have discussed some of the aspects of it, but have never stated a definitive position on it because it has been proven/disproven clearly enough for me. (please don't - fight the urge to go off topic. I am only using it as an explanation.)

Click to expand...

Surely you have an opinion on the matter.

Presumption #2
Where did I EVER express the thought or saying I was upset about anything anywhere? That my friend is your presumption.

Click to expand...

You seem a mite upset now. Just saying.

Debating a topic and defending your position is not emotional, it's not a matter of feelings. Victimization is just another way of saying One cannot intellectually defend a position, so we have to consider it some type of attack.

Click to expand...

Deflection has the same effect.

ThatRobGuy said:

So then if they can make their own policies regarding what content they want to allow, does that mean you're cool with them allowing Russian disinformation on the platform, and allowing people to post false things about vaccines?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be "cool" with it, which is why I would stop using their services if they started doing that.

When will people realize that consumers are not helpless victims?

After all, if they're not confined to be neutral, then they can simply allow people to post whatever they want in order to increase ad revenue.

Click to expand...

Like Gab or Parler.

Or... they might realize that by actually having rules and sticking to them, they will attract more advertisers and increase their revenue even more.

TLK Valentine said:

I wouldn't be "cool" with it, which is why I would stop using their services if they started doing that.

When will people realize that consumers are not helpless victims?

Click to expand...

...but they were basically allowing that stuff, for quite some time, which is why democratic senators called up the CEOs to attempt to coerce them to into restricting some types of misinformation, and labelling others.

Did you stop using their services from 2008 through 2017? During that time period, Facebook and Twitter were loaded with all kinds of crazy falsehoods (from birther conspiracies, to 9/11 conspiracies, to vaccine conspiracies, etc...)

But, in any case, I think the recommendation of just "walking away" from a platform that has established itself as a primary staple of communication is a little easier said that done.

It would seem that your position on the matter seems to deviate from that of the establishment democrats in congress on this particular matter (which is fine, I don't even know what your party affiliation is for that matter), but they can't have it both ways on this one.

If they're going to summons Mark and Jack up to a senate hearing about election misinformation because their position is that the two platforms are so publicly influential, that misinformation on them is one of the culprits behind Trump winning in 2016 (rather than simply creating a government taskforce to create their own government-backed social media platform), then that's an acknowledgment that
A) those platforms have the power to sway elections
B) "if you don't like Facebook and Twitter, go build your own" isn't a feasible prescription, otherwise they would've done it.

To expound on B, there's the distinct possibility that they like the fact that those two influential platforms are in private hands (when those private hands tend to align with them politically). If they made their own, they would be confined to neutrality to a degree. However, if those two powerful organizations remain in private hands, they can influence them, while still being able to use the defense of "they're a private company, they don't have to be neutral"

ThatRobGuy said:

...but they were basically allowing that stuff, for quite some time, which is why democratic senators called up the CEOs to attempt to coerce them to into restricting some types of misinformation, and labelling others.

Did you stop using their services from 2008 through 2017? During that time period, Facebook and Twitter were loaded with all kinds of crazy falsehoods (from birther conspiracies, to 9/11 conspiracies, to vaccine conspiracies, etc...)

Click to expand...

And then they chose to stop. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have?

But, in any case, I think the recommendation of just "walking away" from a platform that has established itself as a primary staple of communication is a little easier said that done.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MySpace, LiveJournal, Gab, Parler, Google Currents, or any of the others?

Whoever is "the primary staple of communication" only got that way because of us. And they can fall out of favor pretty quickly if the winds of change blow.

It would seem that your position on the matter seems to deviate from that of the establishment democrats in congress on this particular matter (which is fine, I don't even know what your party affiliation is for that matter), but they can't have it both ways on this one.

Click to expand...

That's them looking for someone to blame for their own shortcomings. Big tech is a convenient scapegoat for the left as well as the right. Their opinions mean nothing to me.

TLK Valentine said:

And then they chose to stop. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have?

Click to expand...

TLK Valentine said:

Are you referring to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MySpace, LiveJournal, Gab, Parler, Google Currents, or any of the others?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider all of them to be primary staples,

Myspace, at it's peak, had 115 million global users.

Facebook has just under 3 billion
Twitter has 350 million

And Facebook & Twitter has had public partnerships that go well beyond what myspace ever had.

TLK Valentine said:

Whoever is "the primary staple of communication" only got that way because of us. And they can fall out of favor pretty quickly if the winds of change blow.

Click to expand...

I think that's true up to a certain size, but once a certain tipping point is reached, it becomes difficult to "knock the king of their throne" so to speak.

A good example would be a political party example.

The Republican/Democrat duopoly over our political landscape is only that way because of "us", after all, it's the way that public consistently voted that gave them the power that they have.

Yet, now we're in a situation where even though over half of Americans are dissatisfied with the two major parties, a third party still only has a snowball's chance of winning an election.

The reason why (in both cases) ties back to there being certain risks with leaving the place where everyone else is (unless you can convince everyone else to leave with you).

There are people who use social media platforms like Facebook to promote their businesses and livelihoods, so making the decision to pack up and move your content over to Gab or Locals could be a very costly one (even if one isn't a fan of Facebook's practices)

TLK Valentine said:

That's them looking for someone to blame for their own shortcomings. Big tech is a convenient scapegoat for the left as well as the right. Their opinions mean nothing to me.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'd label them as a "scapegoat", but they can certainly play the role of "enabler" in certain instances.

(For the record, do I think a $50k russian ad campaign is why Hillary lost? No, the social climate was indicating that people on both sides were clamoring for someone "different" from the status quo type of politician leading up to 2016, and going with Hillary instead of Bernie was a mistake on their part.)

...but they need to choose between "Am I going to be an open platform for a marketplace of ideas?", "Am I going be accuracy focused?", or "Am I going to be an advocacy platform that tries to steer people in a particular direction?"

Now, none of this would be as much of an issue had politicians not start hauling them up to capitol hill to convince them to remove and "fact check" certain kinds of materials, but not others.

ThatRobGuy said:

I wouldn't consider all of them to be primary staples,

Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted.

Myspace, at it's peak, had 115 million global users.

Facebook has just under 3 billion
Twitter has 350 million

And Facebook & Twitter has had public partnerships that go well beyond what myspace ever had.

Click to expand...

Right -- that's called "success." Obviously lots of people like their products.

If they didn't, those numbers would be lower, and the numbers of the other platforms would grow correspondingly.

I think that's true up to a certain size, but once a certain tipping point is reached, it becomes difficult to "knock the king of their throne" so to speak.

A good example would be a political party example.

Click to expand...

It would -- which is why the capitalist economic model eventually turns into a duopoly

Want a smartphone? Android or Apple.
How about some soda? Coke or Pepsi.
Looking for a credit card? Visa or Mastercard.

Shall I continue?

And contrary to popular belief, it is possible to muscle in on a duopoly -- if you wanted something shipped across the country, it used to be UPS or FedEx, but now Amazon and the USPS have gained some traction.

The Republican/Democrat duopoly over our political landscape is only that way because of "us", after all, it's the way that public consistently voted that gave them the power that they have.

Click to expand...

True, but unlike economics, people are fiercely loyal to their precious political parties and the men who lead them -- sometimes past the point of rationality.



I think we can safely assume that this will never happen because Mark Zuckerberg wanted it.