DeSantis proposes daily fines for Big Tech that deplatform political candidates

[anatta]

Do you consider JPP with its TOS to capriciously ban people? Follow the rules.

from "the Nation" hardly a con site:

Tech Giants Can’t Be Trusted to Police Speech
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-censorship-twitter-facebook/
If Trump is worth banning now, he was worth banning many years ago. The decision to ban him now is purely arbitrary, an assertion of raw corporate power rather than a principled stance.
Motivated by fears of revenue-damaging regulations and boycotts, the social media crackdown is completely capricious.
It highlights why such important decisions shouldn’t be left to the heads of a few very large firms.
Support Progressive Journalism


German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to her spokesman, Steffen Seibert, considers the Twitter banning of Trump to be “problematic.” As Seibert explained, the right of expression is fundamental. [

“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators—not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,”

Seibert said.

This assertion that the perimeters of incendiary speech should be set by the state and not private industry is a wise one.
If incendiary speech does threaten democracy, then it is too important a matter to be left to simply private hands. Social media relies on a public infrastructure, just as TV and radio do, and can be regulated in the same manner.

Russian politician Alexei Navalny argues that the banning of Trump could be a bad precedent used against political speech in other countries, recommending instead that the decision-making process of social media companies be made transparent.

 

[archives]

suddenly just like that the democrats no longer care about the super rich getting richer.....


remember the fairness doctrine?

It was the GOP who killed the Fairness Doctrine, as Limbaugh said, it was the move that made his career and created the world of cable infotainment

If it existed today, it would be irrelevant to the situation

 

[LV426]

Do you consider those laws conservative?

Yes! They are introduced and passed by Conservatives, so...

Because a person labels themselves conservative does not mean they favor conservative policies.

Yes it does, Flash. That is literally what it means.

If you think that is the Worst Take of 2021 just wait--- I'm sure you will soon surpass me.

Going to be hard to top yours.

 

[Underdog]

It was the GOP who killed the Fairness Doctrine, as Limbaugh said, it was the move that made his career and created the world of cable infotainment

If it existed today, it would be irrelevant to the situation

Right, so you supported such a thing. but then why would you not support the same for social media?

 

[archives]

from "the Nation" hardly a con site:

Tech Giants Can’t Be Trusted to Police Speech
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-censorship-twitter-facebook/
If Trump is worth banning now, he was worth banning many years ago. The decision to ban him now is purely arbitrary, an assertion of raw corporate power rather than a principled stance. Motivated by fears of revenue-damaging regulations and boycotts, the social media crackdown is completely capricious. It highlights why such important decisions shouldn’t be left to the heads of a few very large firms.
Support Progressive Journalism

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to her spokesman, Steffen Seibert, considers the Twitter banning of Trump to be “problematic.” As Seibert explained, the right of expression is fundamental. “This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators—not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” Seibert said.

This assertion that the perimeters of incendiary speech should be set by the state and not private industry is a wise one. If incendiary speech does threaten democracy, then it is too important a matter to be left to simply private hands. Social media relies on a public infrastructure, just as TV and radio do, and can be regulated in the same manner.

Russian politician Alexei Navalny argues that the banning of Trump could be a bad precedent used against political speech in other countries, recommending instead that the decision-making process of social media companies be made transparent.

Trump is banned now cause he created and perpetuated lies that led to violence, previously, he just echoed lies

 

[LV426]

Right, so you supported such a thing. but then why would you not support the same for social media?

Social Media is not the press.

Do you...do you understand that?

 

[LV426]

suddenly just like that the democrats no longer care about the super rich getting richer.....

This is a load of baiting horseshit from a compulsive liar.

 

[Underdog]

Social Media is not the press.

Do you...do you understand that?

it is just like a press, and it's a couple near monopolies conspiring to silence one sides viewpoint. you support oligarchs deciding which speech you see or don't see?


all these companies take subsidies and tax breaks you and I don't get. therefore they are not truly private companies but crony corpatists supported in this case by the democrat party,

 

[Underdog]

This is a load of baiting horseshit from a compulsive liar.

Shut the fuck up, clown.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I forgot all about that. You're right, he did, didn't he? Then he had the police storm her house and seize her laptop.

But there's no fascism to see here, folks.

Correct. DeSantis is a mini-Trump. Floridians would be smart to recall his fat ass.

 

[archives]

Right, so you supported such a thing. but then why would you not support the same for social media?

Never said that I would or wouldn’t, only that the tech companies are private entities, and State can’t regulate what they do since currently the State has no role in overseeing the Internet, the Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t apply even if it did exist

 

[anatta]

Are you afraid of that question? Of course you are. You are whining and pooping your diaper because big Tech is not allowing traitors to use their platforms. They aren't allowing their platforms to be used to coordinate assassination attempts against members of Congress. Ball those little fists and hold your breath, loser.

do you get the fact ANTIFA ( which doesn't exist in your delusionary world)
regularly uses social media to coordinate their targeting /and call out targets and organize for doxxing?

 

[anatta]

We need someone to stand up to publishers "capriciously" having opinions? They need to have government approval to disagree with the Republicans? And you think that is freedom of expression?

Freedom of expression is having the right to have opinions without the permission of the government. It does not matter if someone in government finds them "capricious".

so you let the cat of the bag. they ARE ACTING AS PUBLISHERS -meaning Section 230 doesn't apply.

I heard someone say "the solution to lies isn't banning. it's MORE free speech" -get that?
And this is American values, not censorship,.not banning and culture culture,but more discourse instead.

 

[Flash]

Yes! They are introduced and passed by Conservatives, so...

So, if those people called themselves communist those would be communist laws?

Yes it does, Flash. That is literally what it means.

You are claiming political ideology is based on how a person chooses to label himself? That defeats the meaning of the term. This is an overly simplistic view of American politics.

 

[LV426]

it is just like a press

No, it isn't.

It is a social media platform. It is not a press unit. It is not a news unit. It is solely a platform people use to share things.

and it's a couple near monopolies conspiring to silence one sides viewpoint.

Lies and incitement are not viewpoints.

you support oligarchs deciding which speech you see or don't see?

I don't use Facebook, so I don't give a shit.

You don't have to use it either.

But you probably will keep using it because it's the only place where you have any "friends".

all these companies take subsidies and tax breaks you and I don't get.

You're the ones who cut their taxes in 2018, remember??

You're the ones who make it a point to say that any tax on a business will hurt the business, remember?

So I don't know why you're complaining about something that you wanted and fought for!

Pathetic.

 

[archives]

do you get the fact ANTIFA ( which doesn't exist in your delusionary world)
regularly uses social media to coordinate their targeting /and call out targets and organize for doxxing?

What entity Antifa is is on the dark web, Trump can easily use that resource, anyone can, although I’d advise against it, so Antifa is irrelevant in this discussion

 

[anatta]

It is sublime. Basically, the proposal goes like this: Private social media companies may enforce their terms of service.... except in the case of a politician. No TOS for them, they can say whatever the fuck they want. Because they are a 'protected class'. The stupidity needed to advance that argument leaves me speechless. I agree, I think more on the high side of that time frame.

American values are political speech is the most protected class of political speech.
why are you against American values?

 

[LV426]

do you get the fact ANTIFA ( which doesn't exist in your delusionary world)
regularly uses social media to coordinate their targeting /and call out targets and organize for doxxing?

Antifa isn't responsible for any violence.

But you are because you spread lies all over JPP.

Like this lie:

I didn't ask for a mail in, I would have never known it was sent except my Russian neighbor
( who values American democracy more then most Americans) was kind enough to bring it over
return postage paid envelope included.. what could possibly go wrong??

 

[LV426]

So, if those people called themselves communist those would be communist laws

But they're not calling themselves that, are they?

So why don't we deal with reality instead of hypotheticals?

Are you capable of that? Probably not.

 

[anatta]

What entity Antifa is is on the dark web, Trump can easily use that resource, anyone can, although I’d advise against it, so Antifa is irrelevant in this discussion

ROFL..no it's not.
I see them using FB all the time for doxxing.. I think I told you I have a FB friend in Portland.
im not making this up. much is done by private messaging, but Rose City Antifa has a FB page