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

[TLK Valentine]

I think it goes without saying that his ban was well-deserved.

I wish it went without saying, but here's a fun fact: Donald began his candidacy for re-election immediately after his inauguration, which means that even as president, he was technically a "political candidate."

Under Florida Law, "deserved" has nothing to do with it. Donald would have to be reinstated.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

and who let them become so influential? The public.
meaning who has the power to take that influence away? The public.

But of course, if the social media companies got too intolerable, we can't let the public act on its own to correct them... that would be "cancel culture," don't you know...

No, no, no... the "public square" must be brought under government control... it's far too dangerous to entrust to the public.

So, then based on your sentiments here, you're opposed to measures aimed at promoting net neutrality? That situation/debate isn't all that different from the one we're discussing here.

The public's desire for internet access and information at their fingertips is what made the various ISPs as powerful as they are...therefore, their power is the result of the public demand, yes?

If someone objects to that, they can just go build their own internet and start their own ISP then, correct? Or would you be willing to admit it may just be a little more complicated than that once the major players in the sector have already cemented themselves in place?

There are different types of controls that a government can enforce, not all controls are draconian.

There are controls that ensure access, and controls that restrict access.

Applying the sarcastic tone of "no no no, it's far too dangerous to trust to the public" flies in the face of logic and positions that many left-leaning folks, themselves, have espoused about a variety of other large private entities that have elevated themselves to a point where their product/service has been deeply ingrained in society.

Then I strongly recommend that every candidate follow the rules and Terms of Service if they don't want to sabotage their campaign.

Again, terms of service (as issued by a private, but powerful, entity) once they've already cemented themselves a quasi societal establishment can manifest themselves in ways that are very one-sided.

Would your recommendation on the situation be the same if it was a case where Google, Facebook, AWS, and Twitter were all conservative leaning companies (that controlled a vast majority of the market share as those organizations do now), and established terms of service prohibiting promotion of UBI, Universal Healthcare, Gun control, Abortion rights, or LGBT rights? I think we could both agree that would put a real damper on any Democrat trying to reach a large number of people and heavily skew the national political conversation in one direction.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I wish it went without saying, but here's a fun fact: Donald began his candidacy for re-election immediately after his inauguration, which means that even as president, he was technically a "political candidate."

Under Florida Law, "deserved" has nothing to do with it. Donald would have to be reinstated.

Which is why I mentioned at the very beginning that "in spirit", I don't see measures aimed at enforcing neutrality as a bad thing for institutions that, while technically private companies, have basically elevated themselves to a quasi public service.

But admitted that it's tricky...

Obviously things that could incite violence, one can make a very solid argument for banning.

However, when private entities (that are run by people who clearly have a political bias, as just about everyone does) get to define "what constitutes incitement", that's where the waters get more muddy.

And it's not just a concern among US republicans. Many democrats feel the same way (though not quite as large of a percentage)

Most Americans Think Social Media Sites Censor Political Viewpoints

I'd be categorized as being in the 59% of people who voted democratic this last time around, but have concerns about the subject.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A 'massive number'? How many is a 'massive number?

Parler jumps to No. 1 on App Store after Facebook and Twitter ban Trump – TechCrunch

Quarter of a million in 1 day (and jumping to #1 on the app store) would be a pretty massive jump.

So what, exactly, are the 'benefits of being a platform'?

When you're a platform or neutral service, you're not responsible for the content (as it's user driven), as to where a publisher controls their content, exercises editorial discretion, and is therefore liable for content.

For instance, AT&T isn't liable when someone uses their telephony platform to make phone calls to other people encouraging them to commit acts of violence, even though that call is happening over their network and their equipment.

However, if the Wall Street Journal published an article encouraging people to commit violence, then the WSJ would be liable for that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

[

Which is why I mentioned at the very beginning that "in spirit",

But the government doesn't enforce "spirit," they enforce the letter of the law.

I don't see measures aimed at enforcing neutrality as a bad thing for institutions that, while technically private companies, have basically elevated themselves to a quasi public service.

I wouldn't see it as such either... if I trusted the enforcers to be neutral themselves.

I do not.

But admitted that it's tricky...

Obviously things that could incite violence, one can make a very solid argument for banning.

Obvious to you or I, but although I haven't read the text of the Florida law, I'd wager it makes no such allowances.

Considering its author and obvious intent, why would it?

However, when private entities (that are run by people who clearly have a political bias, as just about everyone does) get to define "what constitutes incitement", that's where the waters get more muddy.

The companies probably have a political bias and might act based on it; the elected officials you're trusting to write the laws only have jobs in the first place precisely because of their political bias and are expected to act based on it.

How is this an improvement?

And it's not just a concern among US republicans. Many democrats feel the same way (though not quite as large of a percentage)

Most Americans Think Social Media Sites Censor Political Viewpoints

I'd be categorized as being in the 59% of people who voted democratic this last time around, but have concerns about the subject.

We all have concerns -- but let's make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.

 

[lasthero]

Parler jumps to No. 1 on App Store after Facebook and Twitter ban Trump – TechCrunch

Quarter of a million in 1 day (and jumping to #1 on the app store) would be a pretty massive jump.

And nothing compared to what Twitter does. Keep in mind, Twitter's been around for years, pretty much everyone has it already, so beating it in the downloads isn't all that impressive at this point. We're still talking about a site that gets millions of hits versus one that gets billions. The surge your talking about resulted in the site getting 44M hits in January, which is an impressive jump from the 10M it had before...but, at that same time, Twitter was nearing 7B hits.

7 Billion versus 44 Million.

The idea that Twitter conspired to shut down Parler, a platform that doesn't even come to 1/100 of their traffic on their best day, doesn't match up with the facts. They're not even in the same league.

However, if the Wall Street Journal published an article encouraging people to commit violence, then the WSJ would be liable for that.

So you feel that Twitter should be liable for the stuff that users post on their site? That they could be sued for the content that pops up from their millions and millions of users each day?

Wouldn't that push them to be more restrictive, not less? If they could actually stand to lose money based on what their users do, the obvious solution to that would be to increase their moderation, wouldn't it? To permit even less?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So you feel that Twitter should be liable for the stuff that users post on their site? That they could be sued for the content that pops up from their millions and millions of users each day?

Wouldn't that push them to be more restrictive, not less? If they could actually stand to lose money based on what their users do, the obvious solution to that would be to increase their moderation, wouldn't it? To permit even less?

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Force them to be more restrictive, then get the government to crack down and assume control of them for being too restrictive...

...not the current government, of course -- something a little more sympathetic to the conservative "victims."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So you feel that Twitter should be liable for the stuff that users post on their site? That they could be sued for the content that pops up from their millions and millions of users each day?

Wouldn't that push them to be more restrictive, not less? If they could actually stand to lose money based on what their users do, the obvious solution to that would be to increase their moderation, wouldn't it? To permit even less?

I don't think that Twitter should be held liable, as long as they operate within the confines of being a platform, rather than pushing one narrative over another by practicing selective enforcement. I was making a point about the difference in liability for publishers vs. platforms / common carriers.

The same I way I don't think the telephone companies should be responsible for what people say over their telephone lines.

However, if the phone companies started restricting access to their platform based on an ideological premise, or remote monitored calls and disconnected the calls if someone said something they didn't like, then it'd be a different story.

Platform neutrality is important for all of the same reasons net neutrality is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't think that Twitter should be held liable, as long as they operate within the confines of being a platform, rather than pushing one narrative over another by practicing selective enforcement.

And who gets to decide if their enforcement is "selective" or not?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And who gets to decide if their enforcement is "selective" or not?

Not sure I have a good answer for that...which is why I mentioned before it's a tricky situation.

But to be fair
...those same types of questions (that can lend themselves to subjectivity) exist for every national debate over what a business can or can't do, and conversations about times when it's better for neutrality to be enforced, and when it's better just to leave it "hands-off" from a governance perspective.

With regards social media and their enforcement practices...

The reasonable middle ground, I would have to think, would exist somewhere between
No content moderation at all
...and...
A scenario where a post like this is allowed to stand (and is still up and active on the platform today, 3 years later)

...but this post gets a person banned

 

[lasthero]

I don't think that Twitter should be held liable, as long as they operate within the confines of being a platform, rather than pushing one narrative over another by practicing selective enforcement.

Are they doing that, though? I know that's the accusation, but I've actually yet to see any hard data to suggest that's the case. Individual cases are always brought up, but I can find cases where those on the left are banned over petty stuff, too. When you have systems this big, there's always going to be anecdotes of posts that should be moderated not being moderated and posts that shouldn't be moderated getting moderated. The question is whether such things single out a group unfairly, and I've yet to see solid evidence of that.

Every time this topic comes up, Twitter and other such platforms are accused of being biased against Republicans, but nothing much in the way of evidence suggests that. It's especially weird to say, when you have many Republican personalities who've been quite successful on these platforms.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I don't know guys.... I think social media platforms create rules, and upon joining, we essentially 'sign our name on the line' saying we'll agree to those rules as kind of a legal document...

My question is, did Trump *actually* break a rule on Twitter? Or was he unjustly banned because he was unliked over his politics?

...Maybe that's what this law is about - protecting speech that is not otherwise against a social media websites rules? I guess it would be like kicking a minority out of a Starbucks when he or she didn't do anything wrong, except be different.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I don't know guys.... I think social media platforms create rules, and upon joining, we essentially 'sign our name on the line' saying we'll agree to those rules as kind of a legal document...

My question is, did Trump *actually* break a rule on Twitter? Or was he unjustly banned because he was unliked over his politics?

...Maybe that's what this law is about - protecting speech that is not otherwise against a social media websites rules? I guess it would be like kicking a minority out of a Starbucks when he or she didn't do anything wrong, except be different.

Trump broke the rules long before he actually got banned Twitter suspended a guy who tweeted exactly what Trump tweets

 

[Landon Caeli]

Trump broke the rules long before he actually got banned Twitter suspended a guy who tweeted exactly what Trump tweets

IMO, if a politician can’t follow the same basic rules that everyone is expected to follow, then they should expect the same consequences that everyone agrees to when registering.

...It's called a "bylaw".
By-law - Wikipedia

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't think that Twitter should be held liable, as long as they operate within the confines of being a platform, rather than pushing one narrative over another by practicing selective enforcement. I was making a point about the difference in liability for publishers vs. platforms / common carriers.

The same I way I don't think the telephone companies should be responsible for what people say over their telephone lines.

However, if the phone companies started restricting access to their platform based on an ideological premise, or remote monitored calls and disconnected the calls if someone said something they didn't like, then it'd be a different story.

Platform neutrality is important for all of the same reasons net neutrality is.

But that is just it, you can sue a social media site if they ban you when you didn't actually break the rules. In fact, plenty of people have sued Twitter and Facebook for being "banned" -- the issue is, in every case, so far, these people tended to claim their voices were suppressed, not that they didn't break the rules, and they lost.

And that is, ultimately, the issue. If someone could actually show that the rules of a particularly site were not being followed -- instead the rules were just being applied to one political position -- then they could win a lawsuit against that company. The issue is, despite lots of claims in the public sphere about how "one sided" social media is; no one has been able to provide actual evidence that it is the case (other than a few anecdotes, such as the one a few posts back). Instead, we find that both liberals and conservatives have been banned for breaking rules -- that most have been Republicans, at least so far, merely shows that more Republicans have broken the rules, so far -- not any actual bias.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But that is just it, you can sue a social media site if they ban you when you didn't actually break the rules. In fact, plenty of people have sued Twitter and Facebook for being "banned" -- the issue is, in every case, so far, these people tended to claim their voices were suppressed, not that they didn't break the rules, and they lost.

And that is, ultimately, the issue. If someone could actually show that the rules of a particularly site were not being followed -- instead the rules were just being applied to one political position -- then they could win a lawsuit against that company. The issue is, despite lots of claims in the public sphere about how "one sided" social media is; no one has been able to provide actual evidence that it is the case (other than a few anecdotes, such as the one a few posts back). Instead, we find that both liberals and conservatives have been banned for breaking rules -- that most have been Republicans, at least so far, merely shows that more Republicans have broken the rules, so far -- not any actual bias.

A) There are examples of that, per one my my previous posts, where the Ayatollah said "Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor on the region and needs to be eradicated"...it's been reported thousands of times (so it's not as if the Twitter mods are totally unaware and it slipped through an algorithm), it's still up on the platform as we speak.

B) When a platform establishes themselves to the point where they become the new de facto "public" square, and then they, as a "private" entity start ramping up enforcement of rules that are definitely slanted toward one particular ideology, that is, by default, suppression.

Saying "well the rules are the same for everyone" is sort of a hollow and disingenuous rebuttal when the rules are tailored to boxing out one particular set of viewpoints on certain key issues.


For instance, back before we had marriage equality, what would your response be to a staunch conservative who was trying to justify the infringement on gay people by saying "Hey, the rules are the same for everyone, a gay guy has the same right to marry a woman that a straight guy does...so there's no issue here"?

Even though for the previous marriage laws, on paper, it was the same text everyone had to abide by, it clearly wasn't the "same rules" (in terms of effect) because it resulted in one group of people getting to marry someone who was of the sex they were attracted to, and another group not being able to.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are they doing that, though? I know that's the accusation, but I've actually yet to see any hard data to suggest that's the case. Individual cases are always brought up, but I can find cases where those on the left are banned over petty stuff, too. When you have systems this big, there's always going to be anecdotes of posts that should be moderated not being moderated and posts that shouldn't be moderated getting moderated. The question is whether such things single out a group unfairly, and I've yet to see solid evidence of that.

Every time this topic comes up, Twitter and other such platforms are accused of being biased against Republicans, but nothing much in the way of evidence suggests that. It's especially weird to say, when you have many Republican personalities who've been quite successful on these platforms.

They could clear that up by not hiding their algorithms and submitting them to public review.

Back before we had marriage equality, what would your response be to a staunch conservative who was trying to justify the infringement on gay people by saying "Hey, the rules are the same for everyone, a gay guy has the same right to marry a woman that a straight guy does...so there's no issue here"?

Even though for the previous marriage laws, on paper, it was the same text everyone had to abide by, it clearly wasn't the "same rules" (in terms of effect) because it resulted in one group of people getting to marry someone who was of the sex they were attracted to, and another group not being able to.


...and it's certainly not a justification anyone from the far-left progressive camp would accept for almost any other situation.

The rules are the "same" on paper for voter id laws, everyone has to abide by them, so voter id laws aren't any sort of cause for concern by that logic, right?? Or, by any chance, are voter id laws (which are applied equally to everyone) a bit of a problem due to the fact that they disproportionately (negatively) impact certain demographics that vote overwhelmingly in one direction?

 

[lasthero]

They could clear that up by not hiding their algorithms and submitting them to public review.

I doubt that highly.

"Hey, the rules are the same for everyone, a gay guy has the same right to marry a woman that a straight guy does...so there's no issue here"?

I'd say they were misunderstanding the argument for gay marriage - or, at least, my argument for gay marriage. I would also point out that there's no set definition of what a marriage must and must not be and that the definition has changed over time as culture shift

Even though for the previous marriage laws, on paper, it was the same text everyone had to abide by, it clearly wasn't the "same rules" (in terms of effect) because it resulted in one group of people getting to marry someone who was of the sex they were attracted to, and another group not being able to.

But in this case, it's not at all clear that the two groups are being treated differently. There are people on the right who've been banned, there are people on the left who've been. There are people on the right who haven't been banned when they likely should've, there are people of the left who haven't been banned when they likely should've. Some people slip through the cracks, some don't. We're talking about a platform that gets millions of posts a day, singling out one or two posts is useless in establishing a trend.

What Republicans say - what they always say when this topic comes up - is that they get banned more than other groups, that they're singled out. They'll sight individual cases, but that doesn't really get us anywhere, because it's easy to site exceptions and opposites to these cases, staunch Republicans who do just fine on social media and leftists who get banned off social media.

I've yet to see hard data that supports that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But in this case, it's not at all clear that the two groups are being treated differently. There are people on the right who've been banned, there are people on the left who've been. There are people on the right who haven't been banned when they likely should've, there are people of the left who haven't been banned when they likely should've. Some people slip through the cracks, some don't. We're talking about a platform that gets millions of posts a day, singling out one or two posts is useless in establishing a trend.

What Republicans say - what they always say when this topic comes up - is that they get banned more than other groups, that they're singled out. They'll sight individual cases, but that doesn't really get us anywhere, because it's easy to site exceptions and opposites to these cases, staunch Republicans who do just fine on social media and leftists who get banned off social media.

I've yet to see hard data that supports that.

There are people on both sides who have been banned, but the ToS specifically includes things that are ideologically biased in a way that can completely prevent one side from making their case on particular issues.

For instance, the misgendering policy on Twitter.

If the argument from the far-left progressive side is that someone who's born male feels that they're actually a woman, then they're a woman... the Twitter terms of service basically make it a ToS violation to provide a rebuttal.

This wouldn't be a problem if Twitter weren't one of the main outlets of speech/expression in our country. If Twitter was the size of CF, it would be a non-issue, as there are several other message boards out there that one could go to if they don't like the rules on CF.

But Twitter is a "one of a kind" sort of platform.... it's a platform used by politicians and candidates to reach out to their voter bases. (You'll notice that Ted Cruz, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, etc... don't have CF accounts, but they do have twitter accounts).

When you develop a platform that becomes so big that it becomes a primary vehicle for elected leaders and/or candidates to communicate with their constituents (and becomes more influential than any major media outlet in the country), there's a different set of rules that should be applied.

 

[lasthero]

This wouldn't be a problem if Twitter weren't one of the main outlets of speech/expression in our country. If Twitter was the size of CF, it would be a non-issue, as there are several other message boards out there that one could go to if they don't like the rules on CF.

So Twitter has to be treated differently just because it's big? What if CF were to become as big as Twitter, would it have to change things up, too?

If the argument from the far-left progressive side is that someone who's born male feels that they're actually a woman, then they're a woman... the Twitter terms of service basically make it a ToS violation to provide a rebuttal.

As I understand it, the policy just people from deliberately referring to someone outside of their chosen pronoun or original name. It doesn't stop you from arguing against trans right. For instance, I direct you the Family Research Council's page, which is still up, running, and unashamedly transphobic.

But Twitter is a "one of a kind" sort of platform.... it's a platform used by politicians and candidates to reach out to their voter bases.

It's only 'one of a kind' because it's so big. Functionally, Parler isn't all that different from Twitter.

(You'll notice that Ted Cruz, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, etc... don't have CF accounts, but they do have twitter accounts).

It's funny you should mention Ted Cruz, because he - last I checked - shut down his Twitter page and made the full jump to Parler.

When you develop a platform that becomes so big that it becomes a primary vehicle for elected leaders and/or candidates to communicate with their constituents (and becomes more influential than any major media outlet in the country), there's a different set of rules that should be applied.

But it's not like Twitter was designed for that purpose. When it was first made, there was no way to know that it was going to become so popular, and certainly no way to foresee that it would become a cornerstone of politics. Furthermore, it's not like Twitter made politicians use the platform. The politicians came to them, and now you're saying that they have to play by a different set of rules because things developed in a certain way - rules that seem to be impractical.