Originally posted by Ronson
View Post
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.
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
-
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostDo 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.
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.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostFlorida has passed a law stating that media platforms cannot ban political candidates from their platform.
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostNow, 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.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
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.
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.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
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."
Leave a comment:
-
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).
Leave a comment:
-
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostDo 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.
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:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIsn'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.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View Posthttps://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.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
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.
- 3 likes
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
75 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 10:23 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
52 responses
262 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 09:58 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
195 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
83 responses
349 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:19 AM
|
Leave a comment: