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

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