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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 73
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,029member
    This law will be tossed out in court. First, it’s questionable whether a state has any authority to regulate in a First Amendment area, and second, for unequal and arbitrary application of the law by exempting any company that also operates an unrelated business that has a particular favored status in the state. That’s a truly bizarre, craven carve-out that undermines any pretense at seriousness. 
    swat671williamlondonbaconstang
  • Reply 22 of 73
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,018member
    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:


    What will fail?  The law? Did you actually read it?  Because it's pretty specific.  The legislature passed a bill that lays out the specific behaviors (e.g. censoring, banning, de-listing) and how they have harmed Floridians.  It requires notifications and documentation if such actions are taken.  It lays out penalties.  It's not a 1st Amendment issue...it's a law that Florida now has.  Whether it stands up in court remains to be seen.  Obviously the tech companies will fight it.  
    williamlondon
  • Reply 23 of 73
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 651member
    "We are being silenced by big tech!" he says, live on Twitter, Facebook, and every major TV channel.

    All the major social media companies have an extreme bias in favor of right-wing politics. This is just another example of the Republicans' constant faked victimhood. They pretend to be persecuted even when they get privileges beyond what anybody else gets. It's exhausting.

    I also love the carveout for Disney. They're always willing to go the extra mile to show you just how completely devoid of ethics and morals they are.
    kurai_kagemuthuk_vanalingambaconstangIreneWrobaba
  • Reply 24 of 73
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,029member
    sdw2001 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.  

    You’re the guy who got an entire other thread taken down recently because you were using it to promote the lie that the Jan 6th insurrection wasn’t an insurrection. Now you’re insisting you’ve never seen Parler promoted as a right-wing social media platform. It’s a right-wing social media platform. The only people calling it a “free speech” platform are right-wingers who flocked to it because they don’t like being called out or shut down on other platforms for promoting blatantly false information intended to interfere with free elections.  
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingambaconstang
  • Reply 25 of 73
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,868administrator
    sdw2001 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.  

    Here, let me share with you my opinion about this law, and this conversation.

    The governor of Florida is bent out of shape when folks called his buddy, the last president a liar on social media. He's bent out of shape because private companies don't want to always host the bullshit that flows freely out of his mouth, as is their well-supported right under how the First Amendment treats corporations. Regardless of his position, he is not entitled to a platform, regardless of it being from Silicon Valley or not.

    And, despite the lies being provable lies and labeled accordingly, he got all wobbly about it. In response, he decided to throw up this sham of a law, which no reasonable person can conclude isn't in violation of the first amendment even with the narrowest definition of it, and in fact, directly contravenes the first as it stands presently as it strips the free speech rights that the corporations are entitled to. This is absolutely going to be about the first amendment, as the first amendment is no guarantee of a platform for anybody, POTUS or Florida Governor alike, so it has nothing to do with protecting the rights of Floridians, because under no legal definition does the first apply to what they post on social media.

    If you needed any more proof that it is a sham law with the strategic intent to rile up the goons that follow this guy with almost religious fervor when it gets shot down, it has specific carveouts for theme parks? Give me a break.

    He wants to be able to lie to his constituents on social media and not be called out on it.

    And, my opinion is, that you're not upset that it could have been written more neutrally -- you're upset it doesn't validate your opinion on the matter.

    The article is plenty neutral. It is supported by the preponderance of rulings on the first amendment and by what the founder of Parler called his own social media network. And, like you said, you're welcome to your opinion on the matter.
    edited May 2021 george kaplanlordjohnwhorfinroundaboutnowwilliamlondonAppleZuluapplguytmaymuthuk_vanalingambaconstangfastasleep
  • Reply 26 of 73
    swat671swat671 Posts: 150member
    1) I do happen to like the idea of requiring the companies to tell people if they are banned, restricted, booted, de-listed, bumped down, or have posts deleted. I've had one or two posts on FB deleted for no good reason with no way to appeal it. I've also seen that happen to a LOT of other people. But other people who post similar content is just fine. The way they delete content like that has no rhyme or reason that I can detect. So, social media companies, in my opinion, SHOULD be required to have their rules on deletions and blocks published, and have some sort of third party arbiter who can make rulings if I don't agree with it. 

    2) This law is blatantly political in nature. The GOP is obviously still smarting about November and the runoff elections in Georgia in January. They lost the White House and the Senate, and were embarrassed by what happened in the capital on Jan. 6 (or they SHOULD be embarrassed....). If the law is challenged in federal court, I don't know if it will be struck down under the 1st Amendment, but I think more the Commerce Clause- it  states that "the United States Congress shall have power [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Pretty much, one state can not pass a law that affects what goes on in other states, or people or companies based in other states. Or maybe a due process claim under the 5th? (You're targeting my company, but not Disney...). So, I think it will be interesting to see how it turns out. 
  • Reply 27 of 73
    zeus423zeus423 Posts: 247member
    Apple should stick to making money for its shareholders and worry less about being a political force.
    JWSCwilliamlondontechconc
  • Reply 28 of 73
    Kind of sad when governmental officials who have made it to positions as high as governor have so little (none?) knowledge of something as core to this country as the First Amendment.  
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingambaconstangfastasleep
  • Reply 29 of 73

    The article is plenty neutral. It is supported by the preponderance of rulings on the first amendment and by what the founder of Parler called his own social media network. And, like you said, you're welcome to your opinion on the matter.
    Bravo.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 30 of 73
    slow n easyslow n easy Posts: 334member
    What DeSantis is saying is completely false.
  • Reply 31 of 73
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    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. 
    Did you have a Parlor account?  Tell us more.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 32 of 73
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    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:


    That’s a nice thought diagram in theory. But in the real world of an Internet full of massive online gate keepers I’m not sure that holds up very well.

    The terrible irony here is that these companies, with Apple being a notable exception, did not want to act as gatekeepers, at least initially.  It was politicians who pushed them into it - politicians who knew that they could not legislate such action but could browbeat companies into doing their bidding for them.  I see very little good that can come out of this.

    With regard to Apple, they made it very clear that their walled garden had certain functions, some of which were to keep it clean and protect people from vulgar or dangerous content.  As one person famously put it when talking about sexual content, “I know it when I see it.”  Apple appears to be applying that same standard, which guarantees inconsistencies.
    edited May 2021 williamlondon
  • Reply 33 of 73
    I am old enough to remember when *real* Republicans had a strong libertarian leaning, a carryover from Goldwater first, then Reagan (to a lesser extent). 

    The surest sign that things have changed is the constant whining from self-identified Republicans that private enterprises are somehow interfering with First Amendment rights (complete with a total misinterpretation of the First Amendment), or otherwise seeking to silence voices. Somehow, we all mange to hear the complaint repeated at length, so “silencing” apparently isn’t very effective. 

    Once upon a time, the cries of entitlement were supposed to be the sole province of liberals. These days, though, the self-described Republicans are crying rivers over perceived slights. Goldwater wouldn’t know these folks at all. Reagan would be ashamed. 
    baconstangfastasleep
  • Reply 34 of 73
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,800member
    I am old enough to remember when *real* Republicans had a strong libertarian leaning, a carryover from Goldwater first, then Reagan (to a lesser extent). 

    The surest sign that things have changed is the constant whining from self-identified Republicans that private enterprises are somehow interfering with First Amendment rights (complete with a total misinterpretation of the First Amendment), or otherwise seeking to silence voices. Somehow, we all mange to hear the complaint repeated at length, so “silencing” apparently isn’t very effective. 

    Once upon a time, the cries of entitlement were supposed to be the sole province of liberals. These days, though, the self-described Republicans are crying rivers over perceived slights. Goldwater wouldn’t know these folks at all. Reagan would be ashamed. 
    Exactly right. I grew up in a fiercely Republican home. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and so on. Even they turned away from the sham that is the party today. 
    applguy
  • Reply 35 of 73
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,018member
    sdw2001 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.  

    Here, let me share with you my opinion about this law, and this conversation.

    The governor of Florida is bent out of shape when folks called his buddy, the last president a liar on social media. He's bent out of shape because private companies don't want to always host the bullshit that flows freely out of his mouth, as is their well-supported right under how the First Amendment treats corporations. Regardless of his position, he is not entitled to a platform, regardless of it being from Silicon Valley or not.

    And, despite the lies being provable lies and labeled accordingly, he got all wobbly about it. In response, he decided to throw up this sham of a law, which no reasonable person can conclude isn't in violation of the first amendment even with the narrowest definition of it, and in fact, directly contravenes the first as it stands presently as it strips the free speech rights that the corporations are entitled to. This is absolutely going to be about the first amendment, as the first amendment is no guarantee of a platform for anybody, POTUS or Florida Governor alike, so it has nothing to do with protecting the rights of Floridians, because under no legal definition does the first apply to what they post on social media.

    If you needed any more proof that it is a sham law with the strategic intent to rile up the goons that follow this guy with almost religious fervor when it gets shot down, it has specific carveouts for theme parks? Give me a break.

    He wants to be able to lie to his constituents on social media and not be called out on it.

    And, my opinion is, that you're not upset that it could have been written more neutrally -- you're upset it doesn't validate your opinion on the matter.

    The article is plenty neutral. It is supported by the preponderance of rulings on the first amendment and by what the founder of Parler called his own social media network. And, like you said, you're welcome to your opinion on the matter.
    Lol.  Well I guess we know where you stand.  And to be clear, I’m not upset.  I’m disappointed precisely because it’s not neutral.  Considering it’s by “AppleInsider staff“ and you stated your strong feelings on the matter, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.   
    techconc
  • Reply 36 of 73
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,018member
    AppleZulu said:
    sdw2001 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.  

    You’re the guy who got an entire other thread taken down recently because you were using it to promote the lie that the Jan 6th insurrection wasn’t an insurrection. Now you’re insisting you’ve never seen Parler promoted as a right-wing social media platform. It’s a right-wing social media platform. The only people calling it a “free speech” platform are right-wingers who flocked to it because they don’t like being called out or shut down on other platforms for promoting blatantly false information intended to interfere with free elections.  
    Interfere with free elections.  ROTFL.  Social media pot, meet kettle.  
    edited May 2021
  • Reply 37 of 73
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,018member
    zimmie said:
    "We are being silenced by big tech!" he says, live on Twitter, Facebook, and every major TV channel.

    All the major social media companies have an extreme bias in favor of right-wing politics. This is just another example of the Republicans' constant faked victimhood. They pretend to be persecuted even when they get privileges beyond what anybody else gets. It's exhausting.

    I also love the carveout for Disney. They're always willing to go the extra mile to show you just how completely devoid of ethics and morals they are.
    Objectively false.  You’re buying into the same argument the companies themselves make. That is, because right wing sources are the most shared, it can’t possibly be biased against conservatives. The bias is provable… and it’s not even close. 
    techconc
  • Reply 38 of 73
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,868administrator
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 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.  

    Here, let me share with you my opinion about this law, and this conversation.

    The governor of Florida is bent out of shape when folks called his buddy, the last president a liar on social media. He's bent out of shape because private companies don't want to always host the bullshit that flows freely out of his mouth, as is their well-supported right under how the First Amendment treats corporations. Regardless of his position, he is not entitled to a platform, regardless of it being from Silicon Valley or not.

    And, despite the lies being provable lies and labeled accordingly, he got all wobbly about it. In response, he decided to throw up this sham of a law, which no reasonable person can conclude isn't in violation of the first amendment even with the narrowest definition of it, and in fact, directly contravenes the first as it stands presently as it strips the free speech rights that the corporations are entitled to. This is absolutely going to be about the first amendment, as the first amendment is no guarantee of a platform for anybody, POTUS or Florida Governor alike, so it has nothing to do with protecting the rights of Floridians, because under no legal definition does the first apply to what they post on social media.

    If you needed any more proof that it is a sham law with the strategic intent to rile up the goons that follow this guy with almost religious fervor when it gets shot down, it has specific carveouts for theme parks? Give me a break.

    He wants to be able to lie to his constituents on social media and not be called out on it.

    And, my opinion is, that you're not upset that it could have been written more neutrally -- you're upset it doesn't validate your opinion on the matter.

    The article is plenty neutral. It is supported by the preponderance of rulings on the first amendment and by what the founder of Parler called his own social media network. And, like you said, you're welcome to your opinion on the matter.
    Lol.  Well I guess we know where you stand.  And to be clear, I’m not upset.  I’m disappointed precisely because it’s not neutral.  Considering it’s by “AppleInsider staff“ and you stated your strong feelings on the matter, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.   
    I didn't write the piece, so. I was on a southbound train with next to no connectivity getting a tour of the east coast's backyards and correctional institutional back walls at the time.

    Some pieces go "AppleInsider Staff" because the writer is tired of getting harangued by both sides of the political spectrum because we aren't supporting their political beliefs,  or validating their opinions when we write factually supported pieces like this one.
    edited May 2021 AppleZulumuthuk_vanalingambaconstangfastasleep
  • Reply 39 of 73
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,029member
    sdw2001 said:
    zimmie said:
    "We are being silenced by big tech!" he says, live on Twitter, Facebook, and every major TV channel.

    All the major social media companies have an extreme bias in favor of right-wing politics. This is just another example of the Republicans' constant faked victimhood. They pretend to be persecuted even when they get privileges beyond what anybody else gets. It's exhausting.

    I also love the carveout for Disney. They're always willing to go the extra mile to show you just how completely devoid of ethics and morals they are.
    Objectively false.  You’re buying into the same argument the companies themselves make. That is, because right wing sources are the most shared, it can’t possibly be biased against conservatives. The bias is provable… and it’s not even close. 
    The bias is against conservatives only in the sense that the bias is against bald-faced lies, and many “conservatives” are now far more committed to the lies than they are the things that used to define conservatism. To wit, the House Republicans just replaced Liz Cheney with someone who is significantly less politically conservative, but infinitely more committed to the Cult-of-Trump lies. 
    roundaboutnowmuthuk_vanalingambaconstangDAalsethrobaba
  • Reply 40 of 73
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 767member
    Only one really important word in all of this: Florida
    baconstangDAalseth
Sign In or Register to comment.