Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Florida to ban "deplatforming" of candidates - there's a flaw in this law a mile wide

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Florida to ban "deplatforming" of candidates - there's a flaw in this law a mile wide

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...orming-rcna784

    Florida has passed a law stating that media platforms cannot ban political candidates from their platform.

    To explain why this is a bad idea, let's back up to 2010. A career Neo Nazi named Frazier Glenn Miller (same guy who is now on death row for opening fire at a Jewish community building several years after this incident) moved to Missouri and filed as a third party candidate in a local election. He had no chance of winning, but he was aware that the FCC has a rule that political candidates have to be allowed to run ads without censorship. He put together a series of radio ads ranting against Jews and African-Americans, though he actually used racial slurs to refer to them, and the FCC ruled that radio stations couldn't refuse to run them. The only reason he was running was to get those ads on the air. He of course lost and only got a few votes.

    Now, anybody who wants to go and post racial rants online can just register as a candidate, and they are in effect unbannable. Social media companies' hands are tied.

    I am requesting that discussion of Trump be kept to an absolute minimum in this thread. We all know he inspired the law, but we have hundreds of other threads in this section to talk about him.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...orming-rcna784

    Florida has passed a law stating that media platforms cannot ban political candidates from their platform.

    To explain why this is a bad idea, let's back up to 2010. A career Neo Nazi named Frazier Glenn Miller (same guy who is now on death row for opening fire at a Jewish community building several years after this incident) moved to Missouri and filed as a third party candidate in a local election. He had no chance of winning, but he was aware that the FCC has a rule that political candidates have to be allowed to run ads without censorship. He put together a series of radio ads ranting against Jews and African-Americans, though he actually used racial slurs to refer to them, and the FCC ruled that radio stations couldn't refuse to run them. The only reason he was running was to get those ads on the air. He of course lost and only got a few votes.

    Now, anybody who wants to go and post racial rants online can just register as a candidate, and they are in effect unbannable. Social media companies' hands are tied.

    I am requesting that discussion of Trump be kept to an absolute minimum in this thread. We all know he inspired the law, but we have hundreds of other threads in this section to talk about him.
    Overall, this is a thorny subject. There is alot of conflicting interest and free speech issues that also tie into the outsized influence the major social media platforms have.

    I would say what needs to be done is for platforms to be required to be open about bias instead of falsely advertising neutrality. It's one thing to be biased against a certain political viewpoint, it's an entire other one to do so, while claiming you are politically neutral.

    More importantly, as a society, we need to move away from calling for people's heads when they voice opinions we don't like. If we stopped doing that, then the social media companies would likely not end up having as much censorship as they do.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

      Overall, this is a thorny subject. There is alot of conflicting interest and free speech issues that also tie into the outsized influence the major social media platforms have.

      I would say what needs to be done is for platforms to be required to be open about bias instead of falsely advertising neutrality. It's one thing to be biased against a certain political viewpoint, it's an entire other one to do so, while claiming you are politically neutral.

      More importantly, as a society, we need to move away from calling for people's heads when they voice opinions we don't like. If we stopped doing that, then the social media companies would likely not end up having as much censorship as they do.
      This is fair, and certainly these considerations have been handled in a clumsy way. It seems like most of the major platforms have moved in the direction you've suggested with Covid in that they are not pretending to be neutral on the issue. There have been some hiccups; I know a guy who has a podcast with the word "Bible" in it. He had an episode on Covid vaccines. He ultimately concluded that it was fine for Christians to take it and that the Bible does not even talk about vaccinations, but Youtube took it down as promoting false information. They probably saw the words "Bible", "Covid", and assumed it was crazytown. He appealed as there was nothing in his video that violated any rules, but the appeal was denied within five minutes, clearly not enough time for anybody to watch his 45 minute video.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

        This is fair, and certainly these considerations have been handled in a clumsy way. It seems like most of the major platforms have moved in the direction you've suggested with Covid in that they are not pretending to be neutral on the issue. There have been some hiccups; I know a guy who has a podcast with the word "Bible" in it. He had an episode on Covid vaccines. He ultimately concluded that it was fine for Christians to take it and that the Bible does not even talk about vaccinations, but Youtube took it down as promoting false information. They probably saw the words "Bible", "Covid", and assumed it was crazytown. He appealed as there was nothing in his video that violated any rules, but the appeal was denied within five minutes, clearly not enough time for anybody to watch his 45 minute video.
        What I think is more dangerous is more the stealth approach. Facebook, twitter, google, etc. all have black-box algorithms that manipulate what you see. The fact that they can adjust them to put their fingers on the scale without anyone definitively noticing is the scarier part.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm trying to think of how a law could be constructed that would prevent media platforms from abusing their monopoly on the internet to censor ideas but would also prevent people from using the law as a loophole to post deliberately offensive content that can not be censored. Case in point, how do you even sensibly define what constitutes "deliberately offensive content"?

          Better question: is this something the government should even be getting involved in? I think Mike "My Pillow" Lindell has the right idea: start his own platform (even though the rollout has been somewhat troubled).
          Last edited by Mountain Man; 04-30-2021, 12:45 PM.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...orming-rcna784

            Florida has passed a law stating that media platforms cannot ban political candidates from their platform.

            To explain why this is a bad idea, let's back up to 2010. A career Neo Nazi named Frazier Glenn Miller (same guy who is now on death row for opening fire at a Jewish community building several years after this incident) moved to Missouri and filed as a third party candidate in a local election. He had no chance of winning, but he was aware that the FCC has a rule that political candidates have to be allowed to run ads without censorship. He put together a series of radio ads ranting against Jews and African-Americans, though he actually used racial slurs to refer to them, and the FCC ruled that radio stations couldn't refuse to run them. The only reason he was running was to get those ads on the air. He of course lost and only got a few votes.

            Now, anybody who wants to go and post racial rants online can just register as a candidate, and they are in effect unbannable. Social media companies' hands are tied.

            I am requesting that discussion of Trump be kept to an absolute minimum in this thread. We all know he inspired the law, but we have hundreds of other threads in this section to talk about him.
            Since we know for a fact federal government is influencing social media platforms to ban what they don't like, this is a justifiable action by a state to take. To worry about a rare occasion some nazi uses a "loophole" to spew out naughty racist words seems to so minuscule to the bigger issue.
            "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

            Comment


            • #7
              Isn't that what the first amendment is about? It's about allowing speech that we don't agree with. I say let them say what they want. The answer to free speech you don't like is more free speech. And it shows the world what a terrible person they are. And anyone who agrees with them.

              The biggest problem is that the international top social media platforms have become way more than a mere forum or website, they have become basically telecommunications entities, like a cable company or a telephone company. And they are abusing the power they have.

              Also reading the article it is only about banning. Individual posts and "matrixing" are still allowed:

              The Florida bill would prohibit social media companies from knowingly “deplatforming” political candidates, meaning a service could not “permanently delete or ban” a candidate. Suspensions of up to 14 days would still be allowed, and a service could remove individual posts that violate its terms of service.

              Last edited by Sparko; 04-30-2021, 02:14 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...orming-rcna784

                Florida has passed a law stating that media platforms cannot ban political candidates from their platform.

                To explain why this is a bad idea, let's back up to 2010. A career Neo Nazi named Frazier Glenn Miller (same guy who is now on death row for opening fire at a Jewish community building several years after this incident) moved to Missouri and filed as a third party candidate in a local election. He had no chance of winning, but he was aware that the FCC has a rule that political candidates have to be allowed to run ads without censorship. He put together a series of radio ads ranting against Jews and African-Americans, though he actually used racial slurs to refer to them, and the FCC ruled that radio stations couldn't refuse to run them. The only reason he was running was to get those ads on the air. He of course lost and only got a few votes.

                Now, anybody who wants to go and post racial rants online can just register as a candidate, and they are in effect unbannable. Social media companies' hands are tied.

                I am requesting that discussion of Trump be kept to an absolute minimum in this thread. We all know he inspired the law, but we have hundreds of other threads in this section to talk about him.
                I don't see the issue with anything you listed here. That's his right to be a piece of human excrement. Once social media companies declared themselves to be the public square, that was that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Isn't that what the first amendment is about? It's about allowing speech that we don't agree with. I say let them say what they want. The answer to free speech you don't like is more free speech. And it shows the world what a terrible person they are. And anyone who agrees with them.

                  The biggest problem is that the international top social media platforms have become way more than a mere forum or website, they have become basically telecommunications entities, like a cable company or a telephone company. And they are abusing the power they have.

                  Also reading the article it is only about banning. Individual posts and "matrixing" are still allowed:

                  The Florida bill would prohibit social media companies from knowingly “deplatforming” political candidates, meaning a service could not “permanently delete or ban” a candidate. Suspensions of up to 14 days would still be allowed, and a service could remove individual posts that violate its terms of service.
                  Personally I don't think Florida went far enough.
                  "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Do businesses have the right to refuse service to individual customers or not? It seems like those of you who are on Florida's side here were on the side of the baker in Colorado. That seems rather inconsistent.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post

                      Since we know for a fact federal government is influencing social media platforms to ban what they don't like, this is a justifiable action by a state to take. To worry about a rare occasion some nazi uses a "loophole" to spew out naughty racist words seems to so minuscule to the bigger issue.
                      It's a known technique used on social media, like the New Mexico guy who ran for office, requested a blue checkmark on Twitter, then went viral for accusing all white men who married black women of wanting sex slaves (with his checkmark resulting him in getting the attention he wanted, making him look famous when he was just a SJW nobody).
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        Do businesses have the right to refuse service to individual customers or not? It seems like those of you who are on Florida's side here were on the side of the baker in Colorado. That seems rather inconsistent.
                        Like I said, twitter and facebook have gone into another category. They are more like a utility than a chat room. Utilities are regulated. I think they should be considered a utility when they become the defacto platform of communications on the internet.

                        While a utility can cancel your account for breaking the law or not paying your bill, they are restricted from being biased as to who can and can't use their service or what they say on that service. Can your telephone provider listen in to your conversations and silence you if they don't like your speech? or your internet ISP? Can your power company not give you service if you are a racist?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                          Like I said, twitter and facebook have gone into another category. They are more like a utility than a chat room. Utilities are regulated. I think they should be considered a utility when they become the defacto platform of communications on the internet.

                          While a utility can cancel your account for breaking the law or not paying your bill, they are restricted from being biased as to who can and can't use their service or what they say on that service. Can your telephone provider listen in to your conversations and silence you if they don't like your speech? or your internet ISP? Can your power company not give you service if you are a racist?
                          I'm not sure Facebook is really that dominant at this point in time. There are tons of social media platforms out there; most people under 35 don't even use Facebook anymore. Most of them use TikTok, Instagram, Discord, etc.
                          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

                            It's a known technique used on social media, like the New Mexico guy who ran for office, requested a blue checkmark on Twitter, then went viral for accusing all white men who married black women of wanting sex slaves (with his checkmark resulting him in getting the attention he wanted, making him look famous when he was just a SJW nobody).
                            Don't lose sight of the much bigger issue. Mean words is petty compared to the bigger issue of government using social media as a proxy to violate the constitution under the false guise of a "private company."
                            "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post

                              Don't lose sight of the much bigger issue. Mean words is petty compared to the bigger issue of government using social media as a proxy to violate the constitution under the false guise of a "private company."
                              And I am disputing that this is a "false guise". This is not a violation of the Constitution as written; and as mentioned above, there is no social media company at this point in time that has what approaches a monopoly on the population.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 01:18 PM
                              0 responses
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:01 AM
                              12 responses
                              117 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 06-14-2021, 10:51 AM
                              7 responses
                              52 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 06-14-2021, 09:46 AM
                              30 responses
                              149 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by rogue06, 06-14-2021, 06:44 AM
                              6 responses
                              40 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Working...
                              X