7 ms·

Tech groups sue Florida over content moderation law

55 points by enraged_camel 5y ago

indigodaddy 5y ago
Would a state law fining a social media company (for any/whatever reason the law decides to state) even enforceable?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Nope. It's performative and will collapse under First Amendment grounds; would even if the Feds tried it.
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    I think you’re downvoted because you’ve (correctly) answered this person’s question with respect to the law in the article but parent comment is worded more broadly. I think maybe they’re asking about a state’s ability to fine social media companies for anything.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Yes, unless those laws are unconstitutional, like this lawsuit asserts: > The groups argue the law, set to go into effect July 1, violates the First Amendment by compelling platforms to host speech they'd otherwise remove. > They also argue it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by exempting some companies, and that its vagueness violates the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments.
  - noofen 5y ago
    > The groups argue the law, set to go into effect July 1, violates the First Amendment by compelling platforms to host speech they'd otherwise remove. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but isn't this an admission that these companies act like publishers? Yet they have Section 230 protection? How does that work? If they're removing legal content, you should be able to sue Twitter for content they leave up, right?
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 230 of the CDA entails[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" What Section 230 says is that all providers of interactive computer services are not liable for user content. That's it. It doesn't matter what the interactive computer service does, or publishes or doesn't publish. If you're a provider of an interactive computer service, you're shielded from liability for user uploaded content. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
      - noofen 5y ago
        Thanks for the details. I'm curious though, couldn't traditional publications just say their articles are "user content" and absolve themselves of all legal liability, like defamation?
        akersten 5y ago
        Since the work was generated in the course of that employee's duty with the company, I'm not sure why you think the company would be absolved of liability for the content they themselves commissioned. That employee is the company in this capacity.
        noofen 5y ago
        Yea, that makes sense. I'm wondering how it works with something like TikTok's Creator Fund [1] or Twitter Blue content creators (who might be compensated in the future), or even Medium. [1]: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-questions-answered https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-q...
        akersten 5y ago
        I'm sure that if TikTok reimbursed a creator for content that was disparaging/illegal, the chain of suit would involve both the creator and TikTok. Barring complex indemnification agreements in whatever contracts were signed. S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think. It just correctly clarifies that person A posting on site B generated the content, and is who you should sue first if it's disparaging. That's "how it works" with the laws in place today, there doesn't seem to be a deficiency. This is likely a reason why YT and others demonetize controversial videos - for their own preservation, they don't want to fund the creation of content that might lure a suit. I don't think anything's broken here. Definitely nothing that would be fixed by this Florida bill.
rc_mob 5y ago
I've been saying for years that authoritarianism is headed to America if we don't protect it. With the downfall of Florida as well as many other states, perhaps authoritarian control has truly taken over. This is all about Ron DeSantis and Florida Republicans being upset that Twitter banned Trump. This law is as authoritarian as it gets.
- mc32 5y ago
  Maybe but... I think this has to do more with the arbitrary nature of deplatforming. On the one hand you can have groups calling fir violence against another group and that is ignored, which is fine, but then another group engages in similar behavior and they get banned... which is not impartial. That’s a problem if you have received ideology. Moreover, I think not silencing politicians is a good thing. Let all sides broadcast their ideas or platforms and let voters decide rather than an unaccountable private Corp.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    You're basically suggesting that politicians should be above the law on these platforms, immune to rules, because they're politicians. Do I need to explain how bad that is? If a politician breaks the rules, ideally they should be subject to the same rules anyone else is, and the same goes for any other rich or famous people. Obviously in practice that's going to be a hard target to hit, but for God's sake we shouldn't make it an explicit goal to make them a special class that can do whatever they want with impunity.
    - rc_mob 5y ago
      Yeah politicians being held to a different standard than the rest is textbook authoritarianism.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  You're being downvoted, but you're right. There's a reason that first amendment free speech protections apply to the government, and not private actors. And there's no "...unless they get big enough" exception, despite what some seem to think. The government regulating what speech private platforms may allow or ban is textbook authoritarianism. If a private group wants to permit anything that's not outright illegal, or if they want to have very strict rules on what's allowed, either of those should be fine. And if a company is being overly and unreasonably restrictive about rules, that's a perfect opportunity for a disruptor to enter the fray. The very fact that attempted disruptors constantly get slapped down is a good indication that the rules some complain about aren't nearly as unreasonably as they appear. If the market opening was really that big, someone would be able to make it happen effectively.
paxys 5y ago
The most hilarious part of this law is that there is a specific exception carved out for any company that "owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex". You would think oh, maybe there's some hidden complicated reasoning for this? Nope. The sponsor of the bill literally said he wants to make sure Disney+ "isn't caught up in this". It's crazy to see such blatant, open corruption in American politics.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  A commoner caught stealing money is subject to prison, but a politician blatantly wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer resources on frivolous laws and ensuing lawsuits is hailed by nearly half the population.
  - spamizbad 5y ago
    Not even politician. Compare the penalties of stealing $100 from the till vs payroll theft.
    - cronix 5y ago
      In California, stealing something worth $950 and under is a misdemeanor. Theft is skyrocketing and businesses are leaving. Walgreens has closed 17 stores in San Francisco alone in the last 5 years. They recently uncovered a theft ring that had over $8 million in stolen products. Apparently, some people, enough people, take advantage of compassionate laws to the detriment of everyone else. So, I guess it depends on where you compare that $100 theft. https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-control-Organized-crime-drives-S-F-16175755.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-co...
      - seoaeu 5y ago
        Something tells me that a theft ring doesn't get to $8 million without anyone taking more than $1K. And even if they did, I personally don't see why society should foot the bill for prosecuting and incarcerating someone over a stolen $100 from a private corporation that's probably insured anyway.
kvathupo 5y ago
Welp, so much for the "tech exodus" to miami
- spamizbad 5y ago
  Assuming this law holds up (which I doubt it will) - How long before this law gets exploited by spammers?
  - paxys 5y ago
    It would be hilarious if they started a "Facebook Florida" with absolutely zero moderation. If nothing else it would be a great social experiment.
    - indymike 5y ago
      Florida man is nodding in approval of this idea.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    It won't hold up, and the law's authors undoubtedly know it. It's very obviously unconstitutional for a government to tell a private group what kind of speech they may permit.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hotz 5y ago
At least someone's attempting to give the finger to them for their inconsistencies.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Pretty happy that my tax money is not used to "give the finger". Especially when the private sector is so much more efficient in giving the finger than the public sector will ever be.
anticristi 5y ago
This law is clearly misguided, but let's start the conversation. Isn't an organisation controlling an algorithm that prioritizes news items essentially doing editorial work? Shouldn't it then have similar responsibility as a newspaper?
- paxys 5y ago
  What responsibility does a newspaper (or news channel/website) have? Is this any different from CNN, Fox News, WSJ, Breitbart publishing op-eds to push a certain point of view?
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    It means the publisher can be sued for libel and not just the random nobodies with no power.
    - anticristi 5y ago
      Exactly! Newspapers are held to a higher standard for their content.
      - TulliusCicero 5y ago
        For their content that they pay for, yes, but for 'letters to the editor' and the like that random people send in? My understanding is that no, they're not liable for those things. Well, not legally liable anyway, the court of public opinion is a different matter.
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        It's one thing when a publisher explicitly labels something as an opinion, such as the letter to the editor section of the paper. It's another thing entirely when Twitter or Facebook make false accusations about you in the process of banning you. Like let's say you had some ideas about where COVID originated and they banned you, slandering your good name in the process, by saying you were spreading falsehoods and conspiracy theories.
olivierestsage 5y ago
I doubt Florida will be the last state to pass legislation like this. The overstepping of social media into the shaping of public discourse has been so egregious in recent years that the course has been set.
- hooande 5y ago
  This law is going to be struck down fast. Other states can test the courts, but why pay for all the litigation if it looks like Florida is going to lose?
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    It's a wedge issue for the GOP that fits a narrative about tech companies being biased against them. They don't necessarily have to win -- in fact, in some cases it may be advantageous to lose, so they can keep on with the persecution angle.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
For everyone that is against this law: If in 2028 Mark Zuckerberg decides to run for President, would you be ok with him banning all other candidates from Facebook. He would be the only Presidential candidate that would be allowed to have a Facebook presence. What if he also blocked all posts that were positive about the other candidates? Would you defend the right of association of Facebook and that Facebook cannot be compelled to support speech it does not want to?
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >For everyone that is against this law: If in 2028 Mark Zuckerberg decides to run for President, would you be ok with him banning all other candidates from Facebook. I'd be okay with it. >What if he also blocked all posts that were positive about the other candidates? I'd be okay with it.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Yeah, this would garner so much incredibly negative PR, talk about a self-own. Why would this bother me?
- paxys 5y ago
  You can be not okay with that AND not okay with this law.
jmull 5y ago
The first amendment (emphasis is my understanding of the part most relevant): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” State governments can’t contravene the constitution either, so this applies to the state of Florida too.
- username90 5y ago
  Section 230 makes it clear that these companies aren't considered speakers of their user posted content, hence preventing them from moderating it doesn't impose on their free speech since the user posted content isn't considered their speech.
  - jmull 5y ago
    Section 230 can’t modify/restrict/repeal/affect the scope and meaning of the first amendment in any way.
    - pochamago 5y ago
      It sounds like his argument is that moderation isn't speech, and the posts on these sites, due to 230, aren't attributable to the would be moderators, therefore the tech companies don't have a right to claim that their first amendment rights have been breached. I'm unsure what the caselaw on site moderation looks like, so i have no idea if the assertion is correct
mensetmanusman 5y ago
The tech groups have become the public square. They haven’t realized what that means yet.
- chomp 5y ago
  Does it mean that the government now gets to start whittling away the first amendment because a minority of the politicians can no longer shout hate speech to the country?
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Depends, one year ago FB/Twitter labeled lab-leak discussions as hate speech.
dang 5y ago
Recent and related: Florida will fine social media companies that bar candidates - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27268418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27268418 - May 2021 (169 comments) The Florida Deplatforming Law Is Unconstitutional - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27064221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27064221 - May 2021 (37 comments) Florida bill will fine social media sites for banning politicians- except Disney - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27010054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27010054 - May 2021 (5 comments) Florida plans to fine social media for banning politicians - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27006912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27006912 - May 2021 (11 comments) Disney gets special “theme park” exception to Florida’s anti-tech bill - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002543 - May 2021 (23 comments) Florida bill to fine social media for banning politicians - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001610 - May 2021 (51 comments) Others?

55 points by enraged_camel 5y ago

indigodaddy 5y ago

Would a state law fining a social media company (for any/whatever reason the law decides to state) even enforceable?

ceejayoz 5y ago
Nope. It's performative and will collapse under First Amendment grounds; would even if the Feds tried it.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  I think you’re downvoted because you’ve (correctly) answered this person’s question with respect to the law in the article but parent comment is worded more broadly. I think maybe they’re asking about a state’s ability to fine social media companies for anything.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Yes, unless those laws are unconstitutional, like this lawsuit asserts: > The groups argue the law, set to go into effect July 1, violates the First Amendment by compelling platforms to host speech they'd otherwise remove. > They also argue it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by exempting some companies, and that its vagueness violates the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments.
- noofen 5y ago
  > The groups argue the law, set to go into effect July 1, violates the First Amendment by compelling platforms to host speech they'd otherwise remove. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but isn't this an admission that these companies act like publishers? Yet they have Section 230 protection? How does that work? If they're removing legal content, you should be able to sue Twitter for content they leave up, right?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 230 of the CDA entails[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" What Section 230 says is that all providers of interactive computer services are not liable for user content. That's it. It doesn't matter what the interactive computer service does, or publishes or doesn't publish. If you're a provider of an interactive computer service, you're shielded from liability for user uploaded content. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
    - noofen 5y ago
      Thanks for the details. I'm curious though, couldn't traditional publications just say their articles are "user content" and absolve themselves of all legal liability, like defamation?
      - akersten 5y ago
        Since the work was generated in the course of that employee's duty with the company, I'm not sure why you think the company would be absolved of liability for the content they themselves commissioned. That employee is the company in this capacity.
        noofen 5y ago
        Yea, that makes sense. I'm wondering how it works with something like TikTok's Creator Fund [1] or Twitter Blue content creators (who might be compensated in the future), or even Medium. [1]: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-questions-answered https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-q...
        akersten 5y ago
        I'm sure that if TikTok reimbursed a creator for content that was disparaging/illegal, the chain of suit would involve both the creator and TikTok. Barring complex indemnification agreements in whatever contracts were signed. S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think. It just correctly clarifies that person A posting on site B generated the content, and is who you should sue first if it's disparaging. That's "how it works" with the laws in place today, there doesn't seem to be a deficiency. This is likely a reason why YT and others demonetize controversial videos - for their own preservation, they don't want to fund the creation of content that might lure a suit. I don't think anything's broken here. Definitely nothing that would be fixed by this Florida bill.

rc_mob 5y ago

I've been saying for years that authoritarianism is headed to America if we don't protect it. With the downfall of Florida as well as many other states, perhaps authoritarian control has truly taken over. This is all about Ron DeSantis and Florida Republicans being upset that Twitter banned Trump. This law is as authoritarian as it gets.

mc32 5y ago
Maybe but... I think this has to do more with the arbitrary nature of deplatforming. On the one hand you can have groups calling fir violence against another group and that is ignored, which is fine, but then another group engages in similar behavior and they get banned... which is not impartial. That’s a problem if you have received ideology. Moreover, I think not silencing politicians is a good thing. Let all sides broadcast their ideas or platforms and let voters decide rather than an unaccountable private Corp.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  You're basically suggesting that politicians should be above the law on these platforms, immune to rules, because they're politicians. Do I need to explain how bad that is? If a politician breaks the rules, ideally they should be subject to the same rules anyone else is, and the same goes for any other rich or famous people. Obviously in practice that's going to be a hard target to hit, but for God's sake we shouldn't make it an explicit goal to make them a special class that can do whatever they want with impunity.
  - rc_mob 5y ago
    Yeah politicians being held to a different standard than the rest is textbook authoritarianism.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
You're being downvoted, but you're right. There's a reason that first amendment free speech protections apply to the government, and not private actors. And there's no "...unless they get big enough" exception, despite what some seem to think. The government regulating what speech private platforms may allow or ban is textbook authoritarianism. If a private group wants to permit anything that's not outright illegal, or if they want to have very strict rules on what's allowed, either of those should be fine. And if a company is being overly and unreasonably restrictive about rules, that's a perfect opportunity for a disruptor to enter the fray. The very fact that attempted disruptors constantly get slapped down is a good indication that the rules some complain about aren't nearly as unreasonably as they appear. If the market opening was really that big, someone would be able to make it happen effectively.

paxys 5y ago

The most hilarious part of this law is that there is a specific exception carved out for any company that "owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex". You would think oh, maybe there's some hidden complicated reasoning for this? Nope. The sponsor of the bill literally said he wants to make sure Disney+ "isn't caught up in this". It's crazy to see such blatant, open corruption in American politics.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
A commoner caught stealing money is subject to prison, but a politician blatantly wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer resources on frivolous laws and ensuing lawsuits is hailed by nearly half the population.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  Not even politician. Compare the penalties of stealing $100 from the till vs payroll theft.
  - cronix 5y ago
    In California, stealing something worth $950 and under is a misdemeanor. Theft is skyrocketing and businesses are leaving. Walgreens has closed 17 stores in San Francisco alone in the last 5 years. They recently uncovered a theft ring that had over $8 million in stolen products. Apparently, some people, enough people, take advantage of compassionate laws to the detriment of everyone else. So, I guess it depends on where you compare that $100 theft. https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-control-Organized-crime-drives-S-F-16175755.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-co...
    - seoaeu 5y ago
      Something tells me that a theft ring doesn't get to $8 million without anyone taking more than $1K. And even if they did, I personally don't see why society should foot the bill for prosecuting and incarcerating someone over a stolen $100 from a private corporation that's probably insured anyway.

kvathupo 5y ago

Welp, so much for the "tech exodus" to miami

spamizbad 5y ago
Assuming this law holds up (which I doubt it will) - How long before this law gets exploited by spammers?
- paxys 5y ago
  It would be hilarious if they started a "Facebook Florida" with absolutely zero moderation. If nothing else it would be a great social experiment.
  - indymike 5y ago
    Florida man is nodding in approval of this idea.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  It won't hold up, and the law's authors undoubtedly know it. It's very obviously unconstitutional for a government to tell a private group what kind of speech they may permit.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hotz 5y ago

At least someone's attempting to give the finger to them for their inconsistencies.

Hamuko 5y ago
Pretty happy that my tax money is not used to "give the finger". Especially when the private sector is so much more efficient in giving the finger than the public sector will ever be.

anticristi 5y ago

This law is clearly misguided, but let's start the conversation. Isn't an organisation controlling an algorithm that prioritizes news items essentially doing editorial work? Shouldn't it then have similar responsibility as a newspaper?

paxys 5y ago
What responsibility does a newspaper (or news channel/website) have? Is this any different from CNN, Fox News, WSJ, Breitbart publishing op-eds to push a certain point of view?
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  It means the publisher can be sued for libel and not just the random nobodies with no power.
  - anticristi 5y ago
    Exactly! Newspapers are held to a higher standard for their content.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      For their content that they pay for, yes, but for 'letters to the editor' and the like that random people send in? My understanding is that no, they're not liable for those things. Well, not legally liable anyway, the court of public opinion is a different matter.
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        It's one thing when a publisher explicitly labels something as an opinion, such as the letter to the editor section of the paper. It's another thing entirely when Twitter or Facebook make false accusations about you in the process of banning you. Like let's say you had some ideas about where COVID originated and they banned you, slandering your good name in the process, by saying you were spreading falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

olivierestsage 5y ago

I doubt Florida will be the last state to pass legislation like this. The overstepping of social media into the shaping of public discourse has been so egregious in recent years that the course has been set.

hooande 5y ago
This law is going to be struck down fast. Other states can test the courts, but why pay for all the litigation if it looks like Florida is going to lose?
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  It's a wedge issue for the GOP that fits a narrative about tech companies being biased against them. They don't necessarily have to win -- in fact, in some cases it may be advantageous to lose, so they can keep on with the persecution angle.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

For everyone that is against this law: If in 2028 Mark Zuckerberg decides to run for President, would you be ok with him banning all other candidates from Facebook. He would be the only Presidential candidate that would be allowed to have a Facebook presence. What if he also blocked all posts that were positive about the other candidates? Would you defend the right of association of Facebook and that Facebook cannot be compelled to support speech it does not want to?

Hamuko 5y ago
>For everyone that is against this law: If in 2028 Mark Zuckerberg decides to run for President, would you be ok with him banning all other candidates from Facebook. I'd be okay with it. >What if he also blocked all posts that were positive about the other candidates? I'd be okay with it.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Yeah, this would garner so much incredibly negative PR, talk about a self-own. Why would this bother me?
paxys 5y ago
You can be not okay with that AND not okay with this law.

jmull 5y ago

The first amendment (emphasis is my understanding of the part most relevant): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” State governments can’t contravene the constitution either, so this applies to the state of Florida too.

username90 5y ago
Section 230 makes it clear that these companies aren't considered speakers of their user posted content, hence preventing them from moderating it doesn't impose on their free speech since the user posted content isn't considered their speech.
- jmull 5y ago
  Section 230 can’t modify/restrict/repeal/affect the scope and meaning of the first amendment in any way.
  - pochamago 5y ago
    It sounds like his argument is that moderation isn't speech, and the posts on these sites, due to 230, aren't attributable to the would be moderators, therefore the tech companies don't have a right to claim that their first amendment rights have been breached. I'm unsure what the caselaw on site moderation looks like, so i have no idea if the assertion is correct

mensetmanusman 5y ago

The tech groups have become the public square. They haven’t realized what that means yet.

chomp 5y ago
Does it mean that the government now gets to start whittling away the first amendment because a minority of the politicians can no longer shout hate speech to the country?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Depends, one year ago FB/Twitter labeled lab-leak discussions as hate speech.

dang 5y ago

Recent and related: Florida will fine social media companies that bar candidates - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27268418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27268418 - May 2021 (169 comments) The Florida Deplatforming Law Is Unconstitutional - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27064221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27064221 - May 2021 (37 comments) Florida bill will fine social media sites for banning politicians- except Disney - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27010054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27010054 - May 2021 (5 comments) Florida plans to fine social media for banning politicians - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27006912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27006912 - May 2021 (11 comments) Disney gets special “theme park” exception to Florida’s anti-tech bill - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002543 - May 2021 (23 comments) Florida bill to fine social media for banning politicians - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001610 - May 2021 (51 comments) Others?