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

  • KingsGambit
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Today, 05:31 PM
2 responses
17 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by seer, Yesterday, 08:35 AM
19 responses
166 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Gondwanaland, 06-10-2021, 09:38 AM
48 responses
353 views
0 likes
Last Post Littlejoe  
Started by rogue06, 06-10-2021, 09:07 AM
14 responses
69 views
1 like
Last Post oxmixmudd  
Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-10-2021, 05:22 AM
34 responses
225 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Working...
X