3 ms·

I don't see it pointed out in this article, but the de-platforming ban appears to be limited to state political candidates: "The new law will ... impose fines

I don't see it pointed out in this article, but the de-platforming ban appears to be limited to state political candidates: "The new law will ... impose fines of $250,000 per day on any social media company that de-platforms candidates running for statewide office. It would also impose a $25,000 a day fine on companies that de-platform candidates running for local offices. ... DeSantis said any Floridian can block a candidate they don’t want to see online and it’s not up to Big Tech companies to make those decisions for the public." Seems odd to take such a moral stand on this issue, but only offer protection to political candidates/politicians. (from https://nbc-2.com/news/state/2021/05/24/desantis-signs-bill-that-aims-to-stop-social-media-censorship-on-politicians/ https://nbc-2.com/news/state/2021/05/24/desantis-signs-bill-...)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
koheripbal 5y ago
I don't think it's about morality. I think it's about preventing very large corporations from influencing elections. If there was a healthier and broader marketplace of forums that people spoke on, I would agree that those private companies could do whatever they want. ...but since probably 99% of all political discourse is concentrated on a single digit number of social media platforms, then I think they there's a systemic risk of election influence we need to protect ourselves from.
- bradford 5y ago
  > If there was a healthier and broader marketplace of forums that people spoke on, > 99% of all political discourse is concentrated on a single digit number of social media platforms, let's not blur discourse from the banned candidate/politician with discourse by the population at large. Any candidate could be banned from Twitter, but that doesn't stop discussion about said candidate on any platform. The candidate can still respond on other platforms and subsequent discussion can still ensue. I can only guess Florida's motivation on this is but I have a hard time believing that protection from election influence is the primary factor.
  - raarts 5y ago
    Twitter, FB et al are the de facto public square. Discussions on other platforms are futile in comparison.
75dvtwin 5y ago
Laura Loomer is one such candidate (almost -- she was a Federal Congress candidate) She has been trying to fight the bans on her own, for a while. https://loomered.com/ https://loomered.com/ Do not know if the new law will help in her cases or not. I am certain it will be challenged, however. The legal battles that this will spawn , will be used to sharpen the legal language, evidence, etc. Overall, the direction that Conservatives will take -- is arguing that Political speech must be protected the same way that religious speech is. So this is a federal level battle, overall. Personally, it seems that giving examples of how hotel owners were refusing Black customers, in the past -- by arguing that they can build their own hotel, and equating this to the Left tech titans vs Conservatives -- will not work. As race, ethnicity or biologicals gender is not chosen. But religion is. With regards to theme park protections, I guess they are not speech platforms anyway, so carving out -- for one of the larger tax payers is understood. This is a raging ideological war in the country that has been going one for more than a decade. Conservatives feel on the defense for some time, the time of questioning the legal weaponry that sides use -- has long passed. Will be interesting to see how investment banks that have large presence there -- will react as well. They may threaten to leave (and covering up by the demands of their clients) to apply their pressures, as well. Everybody who has not yet taken side, will have to pick one.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

koheripbal 5y ago

I don't think it's about morality. I think it's about preventing very large corporations from influencing elections. If there was a healthier and broader marketplace of forums that people spoke on, I would agree that those private companies could do whatever they want. ...but since probably 99% of all political discourse is concentrated on a single digit number of social media platforms, then I think they there's a systemic risk of election influence we need to protect ourselves from.

bradford 5y ago
> If there was a healthier and broader marketplace of forums that people spoke on, > 99% of all political discourse is concentrated on a single digit number of social media platforms, let's not blur discourse from the banned candidate/politician with discourse by the population at large. Any candidate could be banned from Twitter, but that doesn't stop discussion about said candidate on any platform. The candidate can still respond on other platforms and subsequent discussion can still ensue. I can only guess Florida's motivation on this is but I have a hard time believing that protection from election influence is the primary factor.
- raarts 5y ago
  Twitter, FB et al are the de facto public square. Discussions on other platforms are futile in comparison.

75dvtwin 5y ago

Laura Loomer is one such candidate (almost -- she was a Federal Congress candidate) She has been trying to fight the bans on her own, for a while. https://loomered.com/ https://loomered.com/ Do not know if the new law will help in her cases or not. I am certain it will be challenged, however. The legal battles that this will spawn , will be used to sharpen the legal language, evidence, etc. Overall, the direction that Conservatives will take -- is arguing that Political speech must be protected the same way that religious speech is. So this is a federal level battle, overall. Personally, it seems that giving examples of how hotel owners were refusing Black customers, in the past -- by arguing that they can build their own hotel, and equating this to the Left tech titans vs Conservatives -- will not work. As race, ethnicity or biologicals gender is not chosen. But religion is. With regards to theme park protections, I guess they are not speech platforms anyway, so carving out -- for one of the larger tax payers is understood. This is a raging ideological war in the country that has been going one for more than a decade. Conservatives feel on the defense for some time, the time of questioning the legal weaponry that sides use -- has long passed. Will be interesting to see how investment banks that have large presence there -- will react as well. They may threaten to leave (and covering up by the demands of their clients) to apply their pressures, as well. Everybody who has not yet taken side, will have to pick one.