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

  • #16
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

    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.
    Since we know the House Dems have openly applied pressure to big tech to force them to censor what they don't like -- how is that not a direct violation of the first amendment? Moreover, something I also suspected, and something judicial watch proved, there's also behind the scenes collusion going on between government officials and tech companies, and I'm sure this happens more often than any of us think. There's no way you can get me to believe that twitter banning NYP for reporting the Hunter email story and then all the other platforms subsequently censoring the story wasn't government influenced. Since government is influencing these decisions, the protections of a private company no longer apply, thus intervention protecting our first amendment rights from government interference becomes a necessity. To worry about some rare loophole someone might use to spew hurtful speech is trivial.

    As far as the last part of your post, I think that's irrelevant. Government will interfere with whatever platform is the public social square and most influential at the time. We need policies that prevent that.
    "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


    • #17
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      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.
      It seems like there are a lot of rants against whites these days on the air. Social media condones it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        Florida has passed a law stating that media platforms cannot ban political candidates from their platform.
        As to the law ... hmmm. I need to chew on that one a bit. Social media platforms are similar to FCC-controlled airwaves. They are near monopolies, and if they aren't fair in their candidacy coverage then they can manipulate elections. I don't need Mark Zuckerberg deciding elections for me.

        Comment


        • #19
          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.
          This is an interesting prospect. In general, the answer is yes. But I've used this analogy, in regards to the baker and discrimination.

          1. Imagine a town with just 1 baker. If that baker refuses to do business with a customer, then that customer is "seriously" harmed by the fact that they can no longer secure "baker services".

          2. On the flip side, imagine a city with 10000 bakers. If 1 baker refuses to do business with a customer, what level of harm has really come to that customer when there are 9999 other bakers, perhaps 1 directly across the street, that are willing do to business with them. It's on the realm of negligible to minor.
          3. Now take that city with 10000 bakers, if 9999 refuse to do business with a customer, that customer is again harmed, as there is now only 1 bakery that will do business with them, and the customer is at their mercy.

          In terms of discrimination law, Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 could demonstrate a justification for a law needed to protect consumers. Scenario 2, on the other hand would provide a scenario where that law no longer makes sense, and the freedom to pick and choose customers should take precedence.

          The problem is that there is a whole host of variation between those two extremes. So, while I understand that there is an area where that line should be drawn, I do not have a great idea on where that spot would be.

          Then we can turn around and ask that of Facebook. It's an odd scenario. For one, it's not a "normal" company. Social Media Users are it's primary product, not it's customers, but at the same time it's providing services to them. So, it's odd on whether or not discrimination laws apply to them at all. Could they, legally, refuse to provide services to blacks based on skin color? They aren't selling them anything... so...maybe. (Note, I'm ignoring the general backlash of what such a decision might bring)

          Another thing is that it is relying on the power of a network of people. So in a way, I'm not sure the standard definition of market share (of social media, not advertising) works.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

            As to the law ... hmmm. I need to chew on that one a bit. Social media platforms are similar to FCC-controlled airwaves. They are near monopolies, and if they aren't fair in their candidacy coverage then they can manipulate elections. I don't need Mark Zuckerberg deciding elections for me.
            What I'd like to see is if the law takes a stance about banning actual elected officials in other countries. Facebook famously banned several government officials from Myanmar several years ago after they were openly inciting genocide on the platform; this had gone unchecked for awhile because they didn't have enough moderators who knew their language.
            "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


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              As to the law ... hmmm. I need to chew on that one a bit. Social media platforms are similar to FCC-controlled airwaves. They are near monopolies, and if they aren't fair in their candidacy coverage then they can manipulate elections. I don't need Mark Zuckerberg deciding elections for me.
              This is essentially the same reasoning that was used for the Fairness Doctrine. This went before the Supreme Court when a public figure demanded an opportunity to respond to criticism by a popular radio preacher who criticized him, resulting in an "equal time rule" and "response to personal attack rule" when radio airwaves are used. I could hardly imagine this sort of thing coming into play in modern society where media is far more politically polarized (i.e. Anthony Fauci demanding time on the Tucker Carlson Show to respond to criticism).
              "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
              8 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
              150 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