Florida governor signs bill to curb 'big tech censorship' of politics

AppleInsider

Live on Twitter and Facebook, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that takes aim against "big tech censorship," that aims to minimize the suppression of political speech on social networks.

Signed on Monday by DeSantis, measure SB 7072 enacts new rules that will affect political speech on social networks. Under the law, social media companies must inform users of instances where they are banned or censored. The rules put forth in the Florida law also encompass mandatory notification to users of instances where a post is flagged with a warning to others about potential false or disputable information in the post.

Penalties under the bill include daily fines of up to $100,000 for the platforms. Users will also have the ability to sue companies they believe are violating that law.

While the bill will affect companies including Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon, it won't affect companies owned or operated by Walt Disney Co. A provision states the law doesn't affect systems and services "operated by a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex" in the state.

According to DeSantis, social media firms "use secret algorithms and shadow banning to shape debates and control the flow of information. Yet they evade accountability by claiming they're just neutral platforms." DeSantis also likened the situation to Big Brother's power in the George Orwell novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four."

The bill is the first at a state level taking on a perceived problem of political content suppression, claims that have repeatedly been made before, during, and after the last U.S. Presidential election.

Unless other laws are passed to strip "personhood" from corporations, Florida's new law is not likely to survive a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law.

The complaints led to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee subpoenaing the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to testify before Congress in October 2020 about the Communications Decency Act and allegations there was political censorship on social media sites and apps.

While Apple doesn't operate a social network directly, it has become the target of criticism over Parler, a right-wing social media app it pulled from the App Store over claims it was used by hate groups and helped organize the January attack on the Capitol. In May, Parler returned to the App Store with a system in place to censor content that violates Apple's guidelines.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

lkrupp

Censorship cuts both ways you know. Someone is always ready to silence opposing opinions, thinking they are doing the right thing and making the world a better place. 

crowley

AppleInsider said:

Signed on Monday by DeSantis, measure SB 7072 enacts new rules that will affect political speech on social networks. Under the law, social media companies must inform users of instances where they are banned or censored. The rules put forth in the Florida law also encompass mandatory notification to users of instances where a post is flagged with a warning to others about potential false or disputable information in the post.

Penalties under the bill include daily fines of up to $100,000 for the platforms. Users will also have the ability to sue companies they believe are violating that law.

Penalties and suing them for what?  Not informing users that they're banned, censored or flagged as potentially false or disputable?  That doesn't seem so bad, companies should be transparent about what they're doing.

Though allowing users to sue for shadow-banning seems like a recipe for lots of spurious lawsuits and corporate denials.

roundaboutnow

AppleInsider said:

...

While the bill will affect companies including Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon, it won't affect companies owned or operated by Walt Disney Co. A provision states the law doesn't affect systems and services "operated by a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex" in the state.

...

Hah, I can see it now...

Now Opening in Florida!:
Apple World
Google Studios
Twitter Land
Facebook Kingdom
Amazon Gardens

KTR

crowley said:

AppleInsider said:

Signed on Monday by DeSantis, measure SB 7072 enacts new rules that will affect political speech on social networks. Under the law, social media companies must inform users of instances where they are banned or censored. The rules put forth in the Florida law also encompass mandatory notification to users of instances where a post is flagged with a warning to others about potential false or disputable information in the post.

Penalties under the bill include daily fines of up to $100,000 for the platforms. Users will also have the ability to sue companies they believe are violating that law.

Penalties and suing them for what?  Not informing users that they're banned, censored or flagged as potentially false or disputable?  That doesn't seem so bad, companies should be transparent about what they're doing.

Though allowing users to sue for shadow-banning seems like a recipe for lots of spurious lawsuits and corporate denials.

I hope it back fires.  Seems line trump is running the Republicans behind the scene.  If I’m not mistaken. Ron is a trump supporter.

sdw2001

Really disappointed in the inaccurate and baseless commentary within the article.  

The bill is the first at a state level taking on a perceived problem of political content suppression, claims that have repeatedly been made before, during, and after the last U.S. Presidential election. 

The way this is written is really biased.  Calling it a "perceived problem" implies that those who believe that large platforms discriminate on ideological groups are somehow wrong or to be dismissed. Moreover, stating that the "claims" have been made "repeatedly" around the Presidential election is sly way of tying those who point out the bias as being tied to the former President, election fraud claims, and January 6th.   Finally, AI links to its own article on a political content suppression lawsuit being dismissed. This further undermines the view that political content suppression is real.  

Reasonable people can disagree on if such suppression is happening and to what extent, but if the author wants to take a position, he should do so directly.  If not, it should be written from as neutral a POV as possible.  

Unless other laws are passed to strip "personhood" from corporations, Florida's new law is not likely to survive a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law.

On what is this based?  It has nothing to do with "personhood" under the law.  It's about requiring transparency for censorship and allowing people to sue under Florida law. Either way, it's a wholly unsupported opinion.   

While Apple doesn't operate a social network directly, it has become the target of criticism over Parler, a right-wing social media app

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

lordjohnwhorfin

They’re fierce defenders of the rights of corporations to funnel as much money as they want into political campaigns… only as long as it’s theirs. The second corporations dare to oppose them, their first amendment right goes out the window. Laughable.

sdw2001

crowley said:

AppleInsider said:

Signed on Monday by DeSantis, measure SB 7072 enacts new rules that will affect political speech on social networks. Under the law, social media companies must inform users of instances where they are banned or censored. The rules put forth in the Florida law also encompass mandatory notification to users of instances where a post is flagged with a warning to others about potential false or disputable information in the post.

Penalties under the bill include daily fines of up to $100,000 for the platforms. Users will also have the ability to sue companies they believe are violating that law.

Penalties and suing them for what?  Not informing users that they're banned, censored or flagged as potentially false or disputable?  That doesn't seem so bad, companies should be transparent about what they're doing.

Though allowing users to sue for shadow-banning seems like a recipe for lots of spurious lawsuits and corporate denials.

crowley said:

AppleInsider said:

Signed on Monday by DeSantis, measure SB 7072 enacts new rules that will affect political speech on social networks. Under the law, social media companies must inform users of instances where they are banned or censored. The rules put forth in the Florida law also encompass mandatory notification to users of instances where a post is flagged with a warning to others about potential false or disputable information in the post.

Penalties under the bill include daily fines of up to $100,000 for the platforms. Users will also have the ability to sue companies they believe are violating that law.

Penalties and suing them for what?  Not informing users that they're banned, censored or flagged as potentially false or disputable?  That doesn't seem so bad, companies should be transparent about what they're doing.

Though allowing users to sue for shadow-banning seems like a recipe for lots of spurious lawsuits and corporate denials.

It's spelled out pretty clearly in the actual bill.  One of the penalties involves lack of notification.  A lot of the bill also involves requiring in-kind contribution notifications if a company promotes a candidate.  The bill is only 22 pages, so I would take a closer look at it.  We agree that the companies should be transparent in what they do.  As for lawsuits by private persons, it has a section that spells it out.  It's mostly damages (actual and punitive), attorneys fees (etc.) as spelled out.  

sdw2001

lordjohnwhorfin said:

They’re fierce defenders of the rights of corporations to funnel as much money as they want into political campaigns… only as long as it’s theirs. The second corporations dare to oppose them, their first amendment right goes out the window. Laughable.

Not so much anymore.  The Republican party is no longer instinctively defending corporations.  It's a shift that really started under Trump.  The party is going a more populist direction.  It's really moved away from the Chamber of Commerce, establishment "intellectual conservative" crowd.  At least, that is what the base of the party is becoming.  I certainly won't defend many of the actual politicians.  

JaiOh81

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

You either know nothing about Parlor or you’re just flat out lying. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the group think is harassed and threatened on Parlor. It’s all about free speech but only if it’s the “right” kind of speech. 

cpsro

Walt Disney would be ashamed.

cia

sdw2001 said:

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

Parler is a right-wing app that spreads only hate and lies that it's users eat up and then regurgitate back out on Facebook.  It has no place in civil society.  It literally is a place where people wish so hard for the things they like to be true, that false narratives and made up stories become "true" in the users minds.  No wonder 90% of it's users are aggressive "Q" believers like Lauren Boebert and Marjoie Taylor Greene.

DAalseth

I doubt this will survive the court challenge.
Private site, private property, they can allow or ban whomever they want.
That’s THEIR free speech.
Might as well sue the local mall for not allowing a protest in their food court.
Might as well sue Target for not stocking hard core material at the check out lane.

genovelle

sdw2001 said:

Really disappointed in the inaccurate and baseless commentary within the article.  

The bill is the first at a state level taking on a perceived problem of political content suppression, claims that have repeatedly been made before, during, and after the last U.S. Presidential election. 

The way this is written is really biased.  Calling it a "perceived problem" implies that those who believe that large platforms discriminate on ideological groups are somehow wrong or to be dismissed. Moreover, stating that the "claims" have been made "repeatedly" around the Presidential election is sly way of tying those who point out the bias as being tied to the former President, election fraud claims, and January 6th.   Finally, AI links to its own article on a political content suppression lawsuit being dismissed. This further undermines the view that political content suppression is real.  

Reasonable people can disagree on if such suppression is happening and to what extent, but if the author wants to take a position, he should do so directly.  If not, it should be written from as neutral a POV as possible.  

Unless other laws are passed to strip "personhood" from corporations, Florida's new law is not likely to survive a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law.

On what is this based?  It has nothing to do with "personhood" under the law.  It's about requiring transparency for censorship and allowing people to sue under Florida law. Either way, it's a wholly unsupported opinion.   

While Apple doesn't operate a social network directly, it has become the target of criticism over Parler, a right-wing social media app

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

It is perceived problem. The real problem was that social platforms allowed known false information to be placed on their platforms and multiplied by the engagement algorithms. It took an insurrection to finally do something about it. These politicians have an issue with the correction because the false statements helps their cause. 

The law that needs to be passed is that if any lawmaker knowingly makes false statements in a public forum they will be fined $50,000 per Occurrence. I can promise he wouldn’t sign that one. 

cpsro

The radical, racist GOP believes Section 230 protection for the tech companies means their platforms are now public platforms where the 1A applies, but it doesn't and efforts like this don't change it.

Mike Wuerthele

sdw2001 said:

Really disappointed in the inaccurate and baseless commentary within the article.  

The bill is the first at a state level taking on a perceived problem of political content suppression, claims that have repeatedly been made before, during, and after the last U.S. Presidential election. 

The way this is written is really biased.  Calling it a "perceived problem" implies that those who believe that large platforms discriminate on ideological groups are somehow wrong or to be dismissed. Moreover, stating that the "claims" have been made "repeatedly" around the Presidential election is sly way of tying those who point out the bias as being tied to the former President, election fraud claims, and January 6th.   Finally, AI links to its own article on a political content suppression lawsuit being dismissed. This further undermines the view that political content suppression is real.  

Reasonable people can disagree on if such suppression is happening and to what extent, but if the author wants to take a position, he should do so directly.  If not, it should be written from as neutral a POV as possible.  

Unless other laws are passed to strip "personhood" from corporations, Florida's new law is not likely to survive a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law.

On what is this based?  It has nothing to do with "personhood" under the law.  It's about requiring transparency for censorship and allowing people to sue under Florida law. Either way, it's a wholly unsupported opinion.   

While Apple doesn't operate a social network directly, it has become the target of criticism over Parler, a right-wing social media app

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

None of what you are saying about how the article is written is accurate.

For instance: The law won't pass a first amendment challenge, and yes, we consulted with attorneys about it first. It won't pass a first amendment challenge, because corporations have a long history of being able to be defined as people under the law, as the first applies. There are 30 years of precedent on this ground alone.

When Apple cut off Parler, we had discussions with the founder at some length. I'm pretty comfortable with AI calling it a "right-wing social media app" given that the founder called it that.

Just because you do not agree with what the article says based on your opinion on the matter, does not make it "inaccurate" or "baseless commentary."

sdw2001

JaiOh81 said:

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

You either know nothing about Parlor or you’re just flat out lying. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the group think is harassed and threatened on Parlor. It’s all about free speech but only if it’s the “right” kind of speech. 

So.... know nothing, but you can't even spell the name of the app right?  Were you even on Parler? Because I was.  I never much liked it...definitely not as functional as Twitter.  If you have examples of "harassment," I suggest you post them.  

sdw2001

Mike Wuerthele said:

sdw2001 said:

Really disappointed in the inaccurate and baseless commentary within the article.  

The bill is the first at a state level taking on a perceived problem of political content suppression, claims that have repeatedly been made before, during, and after the last U.S. Presidential election. 

The way this is written is really biased.  Calling it a "perceived problem" implies that those who believe that large platforms discriminate on ideological groups are somehow wrong or to be dismissed. Moreover, stating that the "claims" have been made "repeatedly" around the Presidential election is sly way of tying those who point out the bias as being tied to the former President, election fraud claims, and January 6th.   Finally, AI links to its own article on a political content suppression lawsuit being dismissed. This further undermines the view that political content suppression is real.  

Reasonable people can disagree on if such suppression is happening and to what extent, but if the author wants to take a position, he should do so directly.  If not, it should be written from as neutral a POV as possible.  

Unless other laws are passed to strip "personhood" from corporations, Florida's new law is not likely to survive a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law.

On what is this based?  It has nothing to do with "personhood" under the law.  It's about requiring transparency for censorship and allowing people to sue under Florida law. Either way, it's a wholly unsupported opinion.   

While Apple doesn't operate a social network directly, it has become the target of criticism over Parler, a right-wing social media app

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

None of what you are saying about how the article is written is accurate.

For instance: The law won't pass a first amendment challenge. It won't pass a first amendment challenge, because corporations have a long history of being able to be defined as people under the law, as the first applies. There are 30 years of precedent on this ground alone.

When Apple cut off Parler, we had discussions with the founder at some length. I'm pretty comfortable with AI calling it a "right-wing social media app" given that the founder called it that.

Just because you do not agree with what the article says based on your opinion on the matter, does not make it "inaccurate" or "baseless commentary."

It's ironic that your first sentence is nothing but an opinion.  And it's one I fully disagree with.  

The article offers the opinion that the law is unlikely to survive a Constitutional challenge.  That opinion is unsupported.  It is not at all clear that a "personhood" argument would apply here.  Yes, there is much precedent for corporations legally being considered people when it comes to speech.  But this law is not so much about corporate speech per se.  It's about the speech of the people who use the platforms.  The bottom line is it's a statement of opinion that really doesn't have a place here, at least in my view.  As for your opinion, you're welcome to it.  Neither of us are attorneys as far as I know, so how much weight people give that opinion is an open question.  

If you want to call Parler a right-wing  social media app, go right ahead.  My statement was that it wasn't marketed that way.  I actually was on the platform and I follow one of its biggest backers closely.  I never heard it promoted that way.  It was a free speech platform, one that conservatives flocked to.  

My opinion is this is a biased article that offers unsupported opinions as well as an inaccurate description of Parler.  It's not a question of "not liking" anything. I just find it disappointing.  I think the article could have been done in a more neutral way.  

sdw2001

cia said:

sdw2001 said:

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

Parler is a right-wing app that spreads only hate and lies that it's users eat up and then regurgitate back out on Facebook.  It has no place in civil society.  It literally is a place where people wish so hard for the things they like to be true, that false narratives and made up stories become "true" in the users minds.  No wonder 90% of it's users are aggressive "Q" believers like Lauren Boebert and Marjoie Taylor Greene.

Ooooook.   Please cite examples of "hate and lies."  And please explain why it's worse than Twitter, which really does promote hate and lies ad nauseam, even after they are shown to be such.  #UncleTim....remember that?  After that, please provide supporting evidence for your claim that 90% of its users are "aggressive Q believers."  

By the way, even if what you say is true, the fact that you're advocating for such a platform to be wiped out of existence is disturbing.  It's more evidence that the real tyrannic and fascism is on the Left today.  

StrangeDays

Pure nonsense that will fail. The 1A prevents government from forcing private platforms to publish what they don't want to publish. Just like a billboard company isn't compelled to publish your wonk manifesto if they don't want to, neither does Twitter. 

Thankfully, Twitter & Apple & etc have clear rules -- advocate harm and you get booted. It's not a "But muh free speech!" issue in the slightest.

Handy chart:

iadlib

This is getting ridiculous now. They’re enacting laws to “protect” political speech as if it’s a damn religion 😂