5 ms·

Florida governor signs ban on 'deplatforming' by tech companies

14 points by uptown 5y ago

nolvorite 5y ago
While I disagree with this law's implementation, I agree with what it does in theory. Social media companies that are used en masse should have an independent body when it comes to its content moderation.
- smt88 5y ago
  > should have an independent body when it comes to its content moderation That's a reasonable opinion. In the US, it's unconstitutional for that "independent body" to be the government. On top of that, it violates Section 230, so there are two legal barriers. I personally feel that corporations should not be able to spend millions on lobbying, but enforcing that is also unconstitutional. Sometimes the consequences of freedom of speech are great, sometimes they're awful. I'm still thankful that we have them and (so far) the courts have upheld them, as they surely will in this case.
- jonny_eh 5y ago
  Facebook has a pseudo-independent body for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)
smt88 5y ago
Some context people will miss if they only read the headlines: - This is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down[1][2]. Corporations have the right to free speech and cannot be compelled to broadcast anyone else's speech. This bill is cynical grandstanding. - The law tellingly does not apply to any entity that "owns theme parks"[3] (i.e. Disney, a major employer in Florida). That fact demonstrates how hollow this effort is. (Disney owns news services and the Disney+ streaming platform.) 1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/florida-deplatforming-law-unconstitutional-always-has-been https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/florida-deplatforming-... 2. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gov-desantiss-proposed-laws-penalizing-social-media-companies-for-de-platforming-politicians-is-hilariously-unconstitutional/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gov-desantiss-proposed-... 3. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-signs-big-tech-bill-20210524-dvycnrscjjbfnnh7vbs3wimv5q-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-sign...
- nolvorite 5y ago
  I'm sure they were exempted for non-partisan reasons. Disney doesn't own any social media networks, or openly promote anything in the partisan space, which is what I think the law is going after.
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    Isn’t Disney owned by ABC?
    - grzm 5y ago
      Other way 'round. > "The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American multinational commercial broadcast television network that is a flagship property of Walt Disney Television, a division of Disney General Entertainment Content of The Walt Disney Company." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company
  - mrandish 5y ago
    Universal Studios is owned by Comcast/NBC. Seems like it's trying to narrow in on the Facebook/Twitter style social media companies by excluding traditional media companies. It is a weird thing to specify and it also opens an obvious gap. Buying a small amusement park with a half-dozen carnival rides would be a negligible cost for a multi-billion dollar social media company. Possibly cheaper than paying for a detailed legal analysis even.
- max-ibel 5y ago
  I guess Google, Facebook & Co will buy up theme parks then?
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    > Companies are excluded from the law if they operate "a theme park or entertainment complex," Or just buy a movie theater or a collection of weird selfy booths in malls. I would enjoy seeing what they came up with as the cheapest way to buy into this loophole. They'll own a Redbox outside of Dee Dee's Diner in Ocala Fl.
yumraj 5y ago
Serious question, can this law even be enforced if the company is not based in FL?
- mrandish 5y ago
  It probably can be if the company has paying customers (advertisers) or employees in FL. Generating revenue and paying taxes in a state generally creates a legal nexus with that state.
yumraj 5y ago
So all that the racist people and neo-nazis/KKK/and siblings have to do is contest an election for this law to protect them. Sounds easy enough. Haven’t read the law, but is there a loophole that these people are not banned per se, but they can’t post. A good model would be HN’s dead candidate status.
- Google234 5y ago
  You are totally right, I just noticed a similar loop hole in our free speech law that those bad people can exploit in order to spread their message! Better close it up and qualify the 1st amendment.
  - yumraj 5y ago
    Constitution is at governmental level, which amongst other has law enforcement options to deal with matters. Moreover governments are for all citizens. This law is forcing a private corporation to do something, when that private corporation has limited other options. Moreover, a private corporation can decide who it wants as its customers, just like some restaurants reserve the right to deny service to certain kind of customers.
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    You have the right to be heard, not an entitlement.

14 points by uptown 5y ago

While I disagree with this law's implementation, I agree with what it does in theory. Social media companies that are used en masse should have an independent body when it comes to its content moderation.

smt88 5y ago
> should have an independent body when it comes to its content moderation That's a reasonable opinion. In the US, it's unconstitutional for that "independent body" to be the government. On top of that, it violates Section 230, so there are two legal barriers. I personally feel that corporations should not be able to spend millions on lobbying, but enforcing that is also unconstitutional. Sometimes the consequences of freedom of speech are great, sometimes they're awful. I'm still thankful that we have them and (so far) the courts have upheld them, as they surely will in this case.
jonny_eh 5y ago
Facebook has a pseudo-independent body for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)

smt88 5y ago

Some context people will miss if they only read the headlines: - This is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down[1][2]. Corporations have the right to free speech and cannot be compelled to broadcast anyone else's speech. This bill is cynical grandstanding. - The law tellingly does not apply to any entity that "owns theme parks"[3] (i.e. Disney, a major employer in Florida). That fact demonstrates how hollow this effort is. (Disney owns news services and the Disney+ streaming platform.) 1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/florida-deplatforming-law-unconstitutional-always-has-been https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/florida-deplatforming-... 2. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gov-desantiss-proposed-laws-penalizing-social-media-companies-for-de-platforming-politicians-is-hilariously-unconstitutional/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gov-desantiss-proposed-... 3. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-signs-big-tech-bill-20210524-dvycnrscjjbfnnh7vbs3wimv5q-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-sign...

nolvorite 5y ago
I'm sure they were exempted for non-partisan reasons. Disney doesn't own any social media networks, or openly promote anything in the partisan space, which is what I think the law is going after.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  Isn’t Disney owned by ABC?
  - grzm 5y ago
    Other way 'round. > "The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American multinational commercial broadcast television network that is a flagship property of Walt Disney Television, a division of Disney General Entertainment Content of The Walt Disney Company." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company
- mrandish 5y ago
  Universal Studios is owned by Comcast/NBC. Seems like it's trying to narrow in on the Facebook/Twitter style social media companies by excluding traditional media companies. It is a weird thing to specify and it also opens an obvious gap. Buying a small amusement park with a half-dozen carnival rides would be a negligible cost for a multi-billion dollar social media company. Possibly cheaper than paying for a detailed legal analysis even.
max-ibel 5y ago
I guess Google, Facebook & Co will buy up theme parks then?
- mywittyname 5y ago
  > Companies are excluded from the law if they operate "a theme park or entertainment complex," Or just buy a movie theater or a collection of weird selfy booths in malls. I would enjoy seeing what they came up with as the cheapest way to buy into this loophole. They'll own a Redbox outside of Dee Dee's Diner in Ocala Fl.

yumraj 5y ago

Serious question, can this law even be enforced if the company is not based in FL?

mrandish 5y ago
It probably can be if the company has paying customers (advertisers) or employees in FL. Generating revenue and paying taxes in a state generally creates a legal nexus with that state.

yumraj 5y ago

So all that the racist people and neo-nazis/KKK/and siblings have to do is contest an election for this law to protect them. Sounds easy enough. Haven’t read the law, but is there a loophole that these people are not banned per se, but they can’t post. A good model would be HN’s dead candidate status.

Google234 5y ago
You are totally right, I just noticed a similar loop hole in our free speech law that those bad people can exploit in order to spread their message! Better close it up and qualify the 1st amendment.
- yumraj 5y ago
  Constitution is at governmental level, which amongst other has law enforcement options to deal with matters. Moreover governments are for all citizens. This law is forcing a private corporation to do something, when that private corporation has limited other options. Moreover, a private corporation can decide who it wants as its customers, just like some restaurants reserve the right to deny service to certain kind of customers.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  You have the right to be heard, not an entitlement.