I'm beginning to see DeSantis as our next President.

https://www.wctv.tv/2021/05/24...ech-censorship-bill/

MIAMI (CBSMiami) - Gov. Ron DeSantis made a South Florida stop Monday morning at Florida International University for a bill signing that he says protects Floridians from big tech censorship.

“This is a big problem, we don’t even need to get into the election interference that we see from Silicon Valley on major issues that deserve robust debate, Silicon Valley has been acting as a council of censors, they cancel people, when mobs come after people they will pull them down, they shadowban people which created partisan echo chambers, and honestly, they are some of the major reasons why this country is divided for doing what they are doing. And the worst part about this, Silicon Valley thinks they know better than you. So their power up to this point has effectively been unchecked and they used this power to impose their orthodoxies and their ideology on our public square. This is not how a free society should operate,” said DeSantis before signing Senate Bill 7072.

The bill, he said, holds Big Tech accountable by driving transparency and safeguarding Floridians’ ability to access and participate in online platforms.

“This session, we took action to ensure that ‘We the People’ — real Floridians across the Sunshine State — are guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites,” said DeSantis. “Many in our state have experienced censorship and other tyrannical behavior firsthand in Cuba and Venezuela. If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable.”

Under SB 7072, per a release from the governor’s office:

All Floridians treated unfairly by Big Tech platforms will have the right to sue companies that violate this law — and win monetary damages. This reform safeguards the rights of every Floridian by requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation practices and give users proper notice of changes to those policies, which prevents Big Tech bureaucrats from “moving the goalposts” to silence viewpoints they don’t like.
The Attorney General of Florida can bring action against technology companies that violate this law, under Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. If social media platforms are found to have violated antitrust law, they will be restricted from contracting with any public entity. That “antitrust violator” blacklist imposes real consequences for Big Tech oligopolies’ bottom line.
Big Tech is prohibited from de-platforming Floridian political candidates. The Florida Election Commission will impose fines of $250,000 per day on any social media company that de-platforms any candidate for statewide office, and $25,000 per day for de-platforming candidates for non-statewide offices. Any Floridian can block any candidate they don’t want to hear from, and that is a right that belongs to each citizen — it’s not for Big Tech companies to decide.
Copyright 2021 CBSMiami. All rights reserved.

Fines are too low. 250K a day is nothing for Facebook or Amazon and a price they would be willing to pay for the last couple weeks before an election for governor. Criminal liability of bad actors under civil rights laws would be better.

This is great news.

Great. Wonder if a Trump/DeSantis platform will run from FL...?

How very sad in the land of the free that it has come to this. When debates are one sided and players just pick up the game and go home when they start to lose. Where emotions drive behavior rather than merit.

Not a tear would be shed if G, F, T, and other big tech companies just stopped existing tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Fines are too low. 250K a day is nothing for Facebook or Amazon and a price they would be willing to pay for the last couple weeks before an election for governor. Criminal liability of bad actors under civil rights laws would be better.

Yes. Agree.

It’s a start and maybe it will embolden more states to do the same.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Fines are too low. 250K a day is nothing for Facebook or Amazon and a price they would be willing to pay for the last couple weeks before an election for governor. Criminal liability of bad actors under civil rights laws would be better.

Yes. Agree.

Depends on whether the claim is brought by the candidate or by each user who is denied access to information. If the latter it could add up quickly.

fines are way too low by about a factor of 100

$250,000 is pocket change

Make fines double daily. After a only few days, Florida will own Silicon Valley.

Like noted above, the key is for other states to adopt the same law. That way an infraction could be magnified and fined in multiple states at the same time.

FLORIDA’S NEW SOCIAL media legislation is a double landmark: It’s the first state law regulating online content moderation, and it will almost certainly become the first such law to be struck down in court.

Under well established Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment prohibits private entities from being forced to publish or broadcast someone else’s speech. Prohibiting “deplatforming” of political candidates would likely be construed as an unconstitutional must-carry provision.

The Constitution isn’t the only problem for the new law. It also conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that generally holds online platforms immune from liability over their content moderation decisions. Section 230 has become an object of resentment on both sides of the political aisle, but for different reasons. Liberals tend to think the law lets online platforms get away with leaving too much harmful material up. Conservative critics, on the other hand, argue that it lets them get away with taking too much stuff down—and, worse, that it allows them to censor conservatives under the guise of content moderation.

Regardless of the merits of these critiques, the fact is that Section 230 remains in effect, and, like many federal statutes, it explicitly preempts any state law that conflicts with it. That is likely to make any attempt to enforce the Stop Social Media Censorship Act an expensive waste of time.


A further provision of the Florida bill, however, exempts companies that own a theme park, such as Walt Disney Co., which runs Disney+, a streaming service.

^^^Got a link for what you're posting there....What do 'Theme Parks' and 'Online Streaming Services' have to do with 'SOCIAL Media' platforms?

It's long past time for Section 230 to go away and these 'social media' platforms to be classified as a utilities.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
that Section 230 remains in effect

Until repealed, or ....hmmmm.... struck down in court!

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Under well established Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment prohibits private entities from being forced to publish or broadcast someone else’s speech. Prohibiting “deplatforming” of political candidates would likely be construed as an unconstitutional must-carry provision.

This is where the genius of this law comes into play. Any court challenges to the new law will by association bring into question the applicability of section 230, i.e. the question of is social media a communication platform and should fall under section 230 protections or are they an editorial platform and section 230 protections are not applicable. The fines are irrelevant, removing section 230 protections is the holy grail.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SpinZone,

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Make fines double daily. After a only few days, Florida will own Silicon Valley.

100% this. $250k is pocket change to these tech companies. $1mil a day is worth it in the middle of an election.

quote:

Originally posted by Hildur:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Make fines double daily. After a only few days, Florida will own Silicon Valley.

100% this. $250k is pocket change to these tech companies. $1mil a day is worth it in the middle of an election.

Or make it an in-kind contribution to the targeted politician's opponent and see how long the censorship lasts.

The author of that article is clueless about section 230 and what it means.

Section 230 was written to protect internet service providers and domain hosts from being liable for what is posted on the internet. So you can't sue Comcast if your kid sees porn. And a domain host is not liable for what its clients put on their websites. This is similar to telecoms not being liable for what you say in a phone call. Basically, there is no duty to moderate content and they are protected from any content related lawsuits. This assumes that the service provider does not act as a "publisher" - meaning they do not decide what content can and can't be posted, do not editorialize, etc.

Section 230 predates the advent of social media so that was not a consideration. If FB took a "zero moderation" approach then immunity under 230 applies. The problem is FB has become a news provider that decides what content it carries. I remember when FB was just postings from friends. Now it is constant ads, links to articles from various publishers, and what have you. It is becoming less of a "connecting with family and friends" site to a commercial site to push whatever generates ad revenue. And that, in a nutshell, is "publishing".

This is not so different from eBay which used to be individuals auctioning personally owned items to now mostly commercial sellers with fixed prices.

So, if FB moderates content and decides what can and cannot be posted for political reasons, they are acting as a publisher and should lose immunity. No different than the NYT or CNN. Or they can be neutral and keep immunity. Pretty simple really.

quote:

This is where the genius of this law comes into play. Any court challenges to the new law will by association bring into question the applicability of section 230, i.e. the question of is social media a communication platform and should fall under section 230 protections or are they an editorial platform and section 230 protections are not applicable. The fines are irrelevant, removing section 230 protections is the holy grail.

My most sincere desire is for these smarmy bastids to lose their section 230 protections. Finally, give them the Ma Bell treatment as the rotten cherry on their shit sundae.

https://www.wired.com/story/fl...ughed-out-of-court/#

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^Got a link for what you're posting there....What do 'Theme Parks' and 'Online Streaming Services' have to do with 'SOCIAL Media' platforms?

It's long past time for Section 230 to go away and these 'social media' platforms to be classified as a utilities.

there's a massive loophole written into the law that exempts companies that own theme parks in the state.

"Social media," as defined by the bill, "does not include any information service, system, Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex."

In other words, the new law won't apply to Disney, which operates Disney World in Florida, and Comcast, which operates Universal Studios. And other companies like Facebook and Twitter could avoid liability simply by opening — or simply buying — an amusement park in Florida.

Indeed, one Democratic lawmaker asked that very question in the debate over the bill back in April.