5 ms·

The Florida law says a social media platform "may not willfully deplatform a candidate for office" and imposes fines of up to $250,000 per day on social media c

The Florida law says a social media platform "may not willfully deplatform a candidate for office" and imposes fines of up to $250,000 per day on social media companies that ban candidates for elected office. The law also says social platforms "may not apply or use post-prioritization or shadow banning algorithms for content and material posted by or about... a candidate," and may not "censor, deplatform, or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast." If this is what the law is actually about, what's wrong here here? Do you really want corporates to decide what political views you should have access to? Every country has laws against hate speech or slander / defamation - if a politician or journalist says something inappropriate on these platform, it is the law that should punish them (even if the punishment is as light as forcing them / the platform to delete their post). (Related topic - even the Indian Supreme Court is currently deliberating on clarifying and enforcing laws on hate speech against journalist / editors / media platforms who have been increasingly indulging in hate mongering - "Where Is Our Nation Headed?", Supreme Court Expresses Concern About Hate Speech In Media, Asks Why Centre Is Standing As "Mute Witness"? - https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/where-is-our-nation-headed-supreme-court-expresses-concern-about-hate-speech-in-media-asks-why-centre-is-standing-as-mute-witness-209912 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/where-is-our-nation-heade... ).

SOTGO 4y ago
Unless there are more qualifiers, wouldn't any user be able to avoid being banned by simply running for any office? It's not particularly hard to run for office, it's only hard to be elected. I agree that discriminating on political views has nasty implications, but the wording of this law seems ripe for abuse.
- gregmac 4y ago
  Suddenly there's going to be a lot of spammers "running for office"...
lotsofpulp 4y ago
>Do you really want corporates to decide what political views you should have access to? No, which is why no one is stopping you from typing in a URL in your browser and visiting a website. But a computer owner should be able to decide what goes on on their computer (even google or Facebook). The network that connects everyone is what should be regulated and forced to be “free” or “unrestricted”.
- keyme 4y ago
  Right.. Are cloudflare CDN nodes "the network"? Or a computer? Because they're "stopping me" already, as of late.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Are the website owners asking Cloudflare to stop you?
    - fwip 4y ago
      Wouldn't be surprised if they mean Cloudflare's decision to stop hosting a harassment and doxxing website (kiwi farms)
      - keyme 4y ago
        That is what I mean. It starts with banning stormfront fascists but ends with banning the president. Keep thinking it's different.
        fwip 4y ago
        Donald Trump was not banned from Twitter until it was clear he would no longer be president.
- intimidated 4y ago
  > But a computer owner should be able to decide what goes on on their computer (even google or Facebook). How do you feel about the Civil Rights Act?
IX-103 4y ago
Even if we ignore the debate about whether a private enterprise should be forced to pay for speech they do not want, the bill is bad law. Who do they define as a candidate? If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? What requirements are there? Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Finally, what constitutes post-prioritization? If I search for something, then ideally posts relevant to what I searched for would be prioritized in results, does this count as "shadow banning"? In any list there can only be one element that is first. Are the others "shadow banned"? Now let's look at this and see if the circumstances justify the government seizing the right of the social media hosting company to determine what content they want to serve on their website. - Does the company have a natural Monopoly due to rights given to them by the public (such as the right of way for cable/equipment installation enjoyed by other common carriers)? No. These companies enjoy no such special privileges. - Is there a substantial cost for a competitor to enter the market? No. Software and server infrastructure are cheap compared to costs incurred to existing common carriers. Then I do not see a justification for the government to rescind the rights of the social network operators in this way.
- specialist 4y ago
  Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate. Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. I don't have the heart to respond to the rest of your objections.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate OK, but this can then be misused for other causes — for example, in the UK there is a deposit that general election candidates have to pay, which IIRC was introduced because too many people kept filing to be candidates because that was a way to get out of a legal obligation (draft, I think). I expect the same here. Is anyone illegible to file for candidacy? Is this exactly the same dividing line you want between the tweeters and the tweet-nots? (I am amused by the idea of Trump social media site being forced to host the literal Communist Party USA candidates, but that's a different matter). > Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. This definition is so broad as to include me. Thanks, I guess, but I don't think I warrant that status.
shostack 4y ago
If someone very visible is using social media as the delivery mechanism for a stochastic terrorism attack, or to organize and trigger an insurrection should they be allowed access to the tools that enable these things?
- webmobdev 4y ago
  Good point - Terrorists are politicians too who believe they have the right to achieve their political goals using violence and anarchy. But most countries already have anti-terrorism and hate speech laws to deal with such kind of politicians who espouse a violent political ideology. As awareness has grown on how hate speech and violence is spreading through the use of internet, law makers are already debating and considering new laws to deal with this menace and trying to find the right balance between restricting such ideas vs balancing your right to express yourself.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Hate speech laws in the US are toothless. Richard Spencer could happily run for local office and then post on Twitter over and over that white people should go murder all black people and he would be protected from any policy action by this law.

SOTGO 4y ago

Unless there are more qualifiers, wouldn't any user be able to avoid being banned by simply running for any office? It's not particularly hard to run for office, it's only hard to be elected. I agree that discriminating on political views has nasty implications, but the wording of this law seems ripe for abuse.

gregmac 4y ago
Suddenly there's going to be a lot of spammers "running for office"...

lotsofpulp 4y ago

>Do you really want corporates to decide what political views you should have access to? No, which is why no one is stopping you from typing in a URL in your browser and visiting a website. But a computer owner should be able to decide what goes on on their computer (even google or Facebook). The network that connects everyone is what should be regulated and forced to be “free” or “unrestricted”.

keyme 4y ago
Right.. Are cloudflare CDN nodes "the network"? Or a computer? Because they're "stopping me" already, as of late.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Are the website owners asking Cloudflare to stop you?
  - fwip 4y ago
    Wouldn't be surprised if they mean Cloudflare's decision to stop hosting a harassment and doxxing website (kiwi farms)
    - keyme 4y ago
      That is what I mean. It starts with banning stormfront fascists but ends with banning the president. Keep thinking it's different.
      - fwip 4y ago
        Donald Trump was not banned from Twitter until it was clear he would no longer be president.
intimidated 4y ago
> But a computer owner should be able to decide what goes on on their computer (even google or Facebook). How do you feel about the Civil Rights Act?

IX-103 4y ago

Even if we ignore the debate about whether a private enterprise should be forced to pay for speech they do not want, the bill is bad law. Who do they define as a candidate? If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? What requirements are there? Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Finally, what constitutes post-prioritization? If I search for something, then ideally posts relevant to what I searched for would be prioritized in results, does this count as "shadow banning"? In any list there can only be one element that is first. Are the others "shadow banned"? Now let's look at this and see if the circumstances justify the government seizing the right of the social media hosting company to determine what content they want to serve on their website. - Does the company have a natural Monopoly due to rights given to them by the public (such as the right of way for cable/equipment installation enjoyed by other common carriers)? No. These companies enjoy no such special privileges. - Is there a substantial cost for a competitor to enter the market? No. Software and server infrastructure are cheap compared to costs incurred to existing common carriers. Then I do not see a justification for the government to rescind the rights of the social network operators in this way.

specialist 4y ago
Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate. Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. I don't have the heart to respond to the rest of your objections.
- ben_w 4y ago
  > Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate OK, but this can then be misused for other causes — for example, in the UK there is a deposit that general election candidates have to pay, which IIRC was introduced because too many people kept filing to be candidates because that was a way to get out of a legal obligation (draft, I think). I expect the same here. Is anyone illegible to file for candidacy? Is this exactly the same dividing line you want between the tweeters and the tweet-nots? (I am amused by the idea of Trump social media site being forced to host the literal Communist Party USA candidates, but that's a different matter). > Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. This definition is so broad as to include me. Thanks, I guess, but I don't think I warrant that status.

shostack 4y ago

If someone very visible is using social media as the delivery mechanism for a stochastic terrorism attack, or to organize and trigger an insurrection should they be allowed access to the tools that enable these things?

webmobdev 4y ago
Good point - Terrorists are politicians too who believe they have the right to achieve their political goals using violence and anarchy. But most countries already have anti-terrorism and hate speech laws to deal with such kind of politicians who espouse a violent political ideology. As awareness has grown on how hate speech and violence is spreading through the use of internet, law makers are already debating and considering new laws to deal with this menace and trying to find the right balance between restricting such ideas vs balancing your right to express yourself.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Hate speech laws in the US are toothless. Richard Spencer could happily run for local office and then post on Twitter over and over that white people should go murder all black people and he would be protected from any policy action by this law.