Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WFLA Tampa Bay)   Governor Ron DeSantis (FL-GOP) signs bill into law that will fine social media companies "deplatforming" political candidates up to $250,000 a day, encourages politicians to lie with impunity   (wfla.com) divider line
    More: Florida, United States, Social media, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida, social media companies, Donald Trump, Georgia, Lieutenant  
•       •       •

2533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 May 2021 at 2:45 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



251 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-05-24 4:10:24 PM  
Step 1: State that I am running for some office in Florida
Step 2: Promote my platform that I am running to make Ron DeSantis stop performing oral sex on goats.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit?
 
2021-05-24 4:12:27 PM  

sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?


No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.
 
2021-05-24 4:18:21 PM  

Murkanen: Shaggy_C:

So we don't have a clear-cut constitutional answer whether or not the Baker must create a political cake.

It was a wedding cake, not a "political cake", and wedding cakes are a service he states he provides via his advertising material.


That is a very important point. The cake was a normal cake. They refused to fulfill the order because the customers were gay.

The other key is that the bakery is a public accomodation. Twitter is not, it is more akin to a club. You agree to a contract with Twitter when you register.

Now, we do probably need new categories and regulatory mechanisms for companies like Twitter and Facebook. Like it or not, they are a major part of society. But that needs to be done Federally, if not multinationally, and should not prevent them from establishing and enforcing terms of service like not encouraging a violent coup attempt.
 
2021-05-24 4:19:22 PM  

Murkanen: Shaggy_C:

If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

No it can't because bakeries are public facing companies, and social media companies require you to be enrolled via contract to use their services.

You claim to be in business.  How do you not know this massive, impossible to ignore difference between the two situations?


Dude it's Shaggy_C. Huuuge gaps in logic that even the Duke boys couldn't jump.
 
2021-05-24 4:21:25 PM  
I just learned about this game this weekend:
Fark user imageView Full Size

I haven't played but wonder if there is a politics category.
 
2021-05-24 4:22:03 PM  
Does this still have a theme park loophole so Bob Chapek doesn't have to beat ol' Ron to death with a set of mouse ears?
 
2021-05-24 4:23:21 PM  
I just love the blinding level of party allegiance that's still white-knighting for trump - while Trump is suing organizations for continuing to even use the Trump logo in political literature...
 
2021-05-24 4:23:34 PM  
Imagine if this caused Twitter and FB to block Florida from access in accordance with the law. Would Florida evolve back to a normal state without the hourly insanity injection?
 
2021-05-24 4:23:38 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?

No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.


And you can't just go on Twitter and start spouting off. You need to register and agree to their terms of service.
 
2021-05-24 4:25:08 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?

No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.


That interpretation was overruled in 1976, Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). In order for a private space to be considered a "public square," the private entity has to essentially be acting as a municipality.
 
2021-05-24 4:26:22 PM  

Ishkur: Hey DeSantis: You know what could've stopped deplatforming on social media?


Net Neutrality.


Wouldn't have done shiat.  All you've demonstrated is that you have no farking clue what net neutrality is.
 
2021-05-24 4:26:40 PM  

Nesher: Step 1: State that I am running for some office in Florida
Step 2: Promote my platform that I am running to make Ron DeSantis stop performing oral sex on goats.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit?


#IdGoFundThat
 
2021-05-24 4:28:17 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


Your country sounds like it sucks
 
2021-05-24 4:30:12 PM  

lolmao500: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

SCOTUS said  the president twitter couldnt ban people from seeing his account. Sounds like yeah, theres a constitutional right to be on twitter... for people at least.


That's not quite what they said.

They said Twittler can't ban people from his feed because he was using it for official government communication.  Had he been keeping his personal twitter feed to non-government things (like "Hey, did Heinz screw with their recipie?  I swear the catsup tastes different since the steaks now taste like nasty charcoal"), then he could have built himself a safe space.
 
2021-05-24 4:31:34 PM  

Tman144: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?

No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.

That interpretation was overruled in 1976, Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). In order for a private space to be considered a "public square," the private entity has to essentially be acting as a municipality.


Not quite - that was about the inside of a shopping mall.

The privately owned public square is more Marsh v Alabama, which is still a standing ruling.
 
2021-05-24 4:34:13 PM  

Somaticasual: I just love the blinding level of party allegiance that's still white-knighting for trump - while Trump is suing organizations for continuing to even use the Trump logo in political literature...


Wait, what?
 
2021-05-24 4:38:01 PM  

MadHatter500: lolmao500: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

SCOTUS said  the president twitter couldnt ban people from seeing his account. Sounds like yeah, theres a constitutional right to be on twitter... for people at least.

That's not quite what they said.

They said Twittler can't ban people from his feed because he was using it for official government communication.  Had he been keeping his personal twitter feed to non-government things (like "Hey, did Heinz screw with their recipie?  I swear the catsup tastes different since the steaks now taste like nasty charcoal"), then he could have built himself a safe space.


Also SCOTUS never said that.

The District Court and Appeals Court said that.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision this year on the basis that the case was now moot (not commenting on the merits).
 
2021-05-24 4:39:01 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Tman144: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?

No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.

That interpretation was overruled in 1976, Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). In order for a private space to be considered a "public square," the private entity has to essentially be acting as a municipality.

Not quite - that was about the inside of a shopping mall.

The privately owned public square is more Marsh v Alabama, which is still a standing ruling.


Quoting Justice Black, who wrote the Marsh opinion, "The question is, Under what circumstances can private property be treated as though it were public? The answer that Marsh gives is when that property has taken on All the attributes of a town, I. e., 'residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a "business block" on which business places are situated.' 326 U.S., at 502, 66 S.Ct., at 277. I can find nothing in Marsh which indicates that if one of these features is present, e. g., a business district, this is sufficient for the Court to confiscate a part of an owner's private property and give its use to people who want to picket on it."

A privately owned space is not sufficient, it specifically says that Marsh is a narrow opinion dealing with a situation where a private entity "was performing the full spectrum of municipal powers and stood in the shoes of the State." Just having a space open to the public is not nearly enough.
 
2021-05-24 4:45:26 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.


This is a stupid argument and has no bearing on reality.

They do not provide any government functions, nor are they contracted by the government to do any.

You are free to start your own site and compete with them and the government can't shut you down.  You can still go to the town square and talk.  The "town square" you're speaking of is hosted in private data centers by provate companies.

Just like I can remove you from my house if you start spouting non-sense or a 7-11 can kick you out for spouting objectionable non-sense, Facebook, Twitter, et al can kick you out.


Just because a majority of people communicate that way doesn't make it a government function.  Talk about slippery slope...

If Facebook must guarantee your right to free speech, than an ISP must guarantee my right to get to facebook, which means they can't shut off my service because I didn't pay my bill, because that would be violating my rights to the "town square."

How far down this rabbit hole are we supposed to go?  We have a right to facebook, so we can't lose internet access, power company must also make sure my power doesn't go out because it's my route to that town square.  A cell company can't cut my service.  Any outage is a violation to my free speech.
 
2021-05-24 4:46:59 PM  

Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]


americanhistory.si.eduView Full Size

"Woolworths is a private company, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named 'Ron' if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. "
 
2021-05-24 4:49:08 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Somaticasual: I just love the blinding level of party allegiance that's still white-knighting for trump - while Trump is suing organizations for continuing to even use the Trump logo in political literature...

Wait, what?


I'm having a hell of a time finding the article, but the Trump org seems to be suing several GOP organizations for still using the logo in their pamphlets,etc. 

Basically, the perfect metaphor for the Trump campaign. He no longer cares outside of maintaining publicity, it's just the GOP hard liners that are still pushing the 2024/stolen election nonsense. His followers and lawyers have probably put more thought into conspiracies than Trump has put into his entire political "career"
 
2021-05-24 4:51:28 PM  
NO SANITY
NO SENSIBILITY
NO SERVICE

Seriously, with the mask rule and now this, this guy is so communist that Lenin is about to rise out of his little glass fish tank and tell him to knock it off.
 
2021-05-24 4:52:25 PM  
Gotdamn, I wanna move to FL and get kicked off Parler just to watch the backpedaling and Floridasplaining.
 
2021-05-24 4:53:22 PM  
Florida Man gonna Florida, man.
 
2021-05-24 4:56:28 PM  
Oh boy! All the Democratic politicians should immediately sign up over at Freeperville and start posting their asses off.
 
2021-05-24 4:57:16 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.

Wow. This is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

/When political beliefs are covered under non-discrimination laws, you might have a point
//But they aren't
///So you don't


California Labor Code
Sec. 1101
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

Sec. 1102
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
 
2021-05-24 5:00:12 PM  

The Perineum Falcon: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

They know it will be slapped down.  It is all for show for their cult.


Just one in a series of unconstitutional emotional issues signed by DeSantis to get him on the national radar and the short list for the R presidential nomination in 2024. He is calculating and relentless and needs to be stopped.
 
2021-05-24 5:00:23 PM  

Paul Baumer: Gotdamn, I wanna move to FL and get kicked off Parler just to watch the backpedaling and Floridasplaining.


I might run for county dog catcher or something just allow you and other farkers to live vicariously through me.
 
2021-05-24 5:01:52 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: GitOffaMyLawn: Hmm, nationalizing (OK, statizing) media.

Where have I heard of this before?

/ have to Godwin the thread somehow

Yeah, he's changed his mind about that.
[Fark user image image 586x114]


It seems like a lot of people (not meaning you) don't actually know what Godwin's Law is. It doesn't say "You can't compare things to Hitler" or "If you compare something to Hitler you automatically means you lost." All it says is that, the longer an internet argument proceeds, the more likely it becomes that Hitler will be referenced. In whatever capacity--Godwin makes no claims on the legitimacy or validity of the references themselves.

At least Godwin points out that, yeah, there are a heck of a lot of reasons to compare people to Nazis these days.
 
2021-05-24 5:01:52 PM  
Good thing Twitter is a microblogging site and not a social media company...
 
2021-05-24 5:04:23 PM  

Gonz: Grungehamster: Who was the farmer who kept posting NSFW content to the Fark Photoshop Contests back in the day?

Rugbyjock. Arkieboy if you're old. Gorgor.

So many greats.


ummm... I'm not a farmer...
 
2021-05-24 5:06:03 PM  

Tman144: Oh look, another "small government" conservative in favor of governmental control over private business.


This.  They aren't even consistent with their basic governing philosophy at this point (if they ever were).
 
2021-05-24 5:08:25 PM  

Epicedion: Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.

I know you're just giving a stupid hot take here, but you're not comparing apples with apples. What you're saying is that the cake shop should have to stand there and let some of their customers shiat on the floor.


I firmly believe that Americans should have the right to get schwifty.
 
2021-05-24 5:14:09 PM  

austerity101: It seems like a lot of people (not meaning you) don't actually know what Godwin's Law is. It doesn't say "You can't compare things to Hitler" or "If you compare something to Hitler you automatically means you lost."


Well.. those became corollaries later; I think the conflation is reasonable. And he explicitly said that his "goal was to hint that those who escalate a debate into Adolf Hitler or Nazi comparisons may be thinking lazily, not adding clarity or wisdom, and contributing to the decay of an argument over time", so what you're saying, while  100% true, is definitely missing some nuance.

To your point: 

"But I do want to stress that the question of evil, understood historically, is bigger than party politics. GL [Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels - sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure - that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

The linked op-ed (by Godwin) is a pretty good read.
 
2021-05-24 5:15:27 PM  
Sooooo...other than kissing the orange one's smelly arse, what exactly is this blatantly unconstitutional law supposed to accomplish?  Ensure a job serving drinks at mar-a-lago after his term ends?

The GQP is losing voters and they know it.  They are going to get more and more desperate, like cornered rats on a sinking ship.

Desperate rats are dangerous ones, especially since so may of them are so diseased.
 
2021-05-24 5:17:36 PM  

Tman144: Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBTblack posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBTblack posts?

Yes, genius.


I am so f*cking sick of people treating homophobia like a legitimate and valid "difference of opinion." It isn't. You're bigots, homophobes.

Your post illustrates exactly why. If someone said, "Look, I just don't think Black people are equal to whites. That's my belief," most people would be like "F*ck off, racist." But someone sayd that about gays and suddenly it's, "Well, she was raised differently, it's what her religion says. That's her opinion," et cetera. It's infuriating and exhausting.

/F*ck your religion. It's not an excuse for sh*tty opinions.
 
2021-05-24 5:20:58 PM  

Ishkur: Obama's Left Nut: Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?

By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?

And why, pray tell, would California -- or any other state -- honor, acknowledge, or even give a shiat about Florida law?


Have you read the constitution? Full faith and credit. If a FL court issues an order granting a money judgment against Twitter California HAS to give it full faith.

Now that said the law is wildly unconstitutional and will get struck down but that was not the original question.
 
2021-05-24 5:22:00 PM  

kmfjd: Obama's Left Nut: Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?

By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?

just one that isn't from gqp fantasy land


The question was how they were going to collect the money. Not if the law was constitutional. Hint it's not.
 
2021-05-24 5:27:32 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: austerity101: It seems like a lot of people (not meaning you) don't actually know what Godwin's Law is. It doesn't say "You can't compare things to Hitler" or "If you compare something to Hitler you automatically means you lost."

Well.. those became corollaries later; I think the conflation is reasonable. And he explicitly said that his "goal was to hint that those who escalate a debate into Adolf Hitler or Nazi comparisons may be thinking lazily, not adding clarity or wisdom, and contributing to the decay of an argument over time", so what you're saying, while  100% true, is definitely missing some nuance.

To your point: 

"But I do want to stress that the question of evil, understood historically, is bigger than party politics. GL [Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels - sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure - that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

The linked op-ed (by Godwin) is a pretty good read.


Yes, he suggested elsewhere that a lot of the people who are comparing things to Hitler are making facile or uselessly hyperbolic comments, but the law itself does not say this, and Godwin never claimed that such comparisons were automatically invalid, just that they often are. There's nothing wrong with regarding such comparisons with skepticism; there is, however, something wrong with dismissing them out of hand without consideration.
 
2021-05-24 5:33:42 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.


Again?
 
2021-05-24 5:33:58 PM  
It appears Americans have no clue about how these bakery cases really turned out. No, a bakery in the US isn't forced to make a cake for literally anyone who wants one. No, bakeries throughout the US weren't magically given the right to turn away gay customers for being gay by the Supreme Court or something. The laws are patchy and stupid, and the bakeries that were sued were ones in places where anti-queer discrimination was explicitly illegal. And the Colorado appeals ruling wasn't about whether the bakery had the right to discriminate, but whether the commission that dealt with their case was unfairly harsh toward their religious beliefs in the wording of their investigation and ruling--the court didn't say they weren't in violation, just that the commission overstepped their bounds in assessing the violation, thus rendering their findings moot.
 
2021-05-24 5:35:01 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: To your point:

"But I do want to stress that the question of evil, understood historically, is bigger than party politics. GL [Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels - sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure - that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

The linked op-ed (by Godwin) is a pretty good read.


Sadly, I think it also reflects that people (generally) don't know very much history, so WWII is the only common ground people have or expect to have in an online argument.
 
2021-05-24 5:36:14 PM  

Arkanaut: IMO the more important outcome of this is that it encourages liars to run for office and thus become "politicians".


I thought that was a given in their party and especially FL.
 
2021-05-24 5:36:45 PM  

HighZoolander: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: To your point:

"But I do want to stress that the question of evil, understood historically, is bigger than party politics. GL [Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels - sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure - that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

The linked op-ed (by Godwin) is a pretty good read.

Sadly, I think it also reflects that people (generally) don't know very much history, so WWII is the only common ground people have or expect to have in an online argument.


It's also regarded as a universally unambiguous moral example, which makes it a good case example for moral debates for determining boundaries.
 
2021-05-24 5:37:05 PM  
So, as a Florida resident, I'd be perfectly fine with the social media companies completely cutting Florida off for a few days.  I'd be laughing my ass off as the blow back on DeSatan would be swift and really fun to watch.
 
2021-05-24 5:37:40 PM  

Ambivalence: Funny how they only care about protecting the free speech of politicians and not regular people.


They literally arrest regular people for free speech.  Case in point:

https://www.wuft.org/news/2021/05/13/​r​ebekah-jones-and-the-consequences-of-w​histleblowing/
 
2021-05-24 5:41:52 PM  
This is like the demented MAGAts who called other players every racist name in the forbidden book in their forum posts that, when banned for obvious reasons, claim 1st Amendment Rights are being quashed. No. This is a private comapny's game forum and you will NOT post anything of the kind. Ever. BANNED!

/ I did love that banhammer power but with great power came great responsibility and 2016-2017 I hit my limit ... thanks MAGAts.
// I began wielding the banhammer like an enraged drunken Thor.
 
2021-05-24 5:41:57 PM  
Fining social media companies in Florida, huh?

And what social media companies have their HQ in Florida? None that I can think of. What are you gonna do, drive to Silicon Valley with a plastic badge in your pocket, and try to arrest some nerds?

I'd like to see him try, actually. It would be funny to watch a half dozen security guards toss the farker out the front door, and watch him land on his face.

Clearly this is a stunt to curry favor with Donnie Dingus. Nobody has any right to a presence on social media. Especially not that mass-murdering fark. But the GOP wants that asshole to stage a miraculous comeback, so they'll come up with as much stupid shiat like this as possible to try to bring that reality to fruition.

/Vote blue in 2022
 
2021-05-24 5:45:35 PM  
Florida, you're doing it wrong. When you craft unconstitutional bills, you're supposed to punch down if you want that to last like a month. That's probably going straight to the courts way faster than any of those "have fun running over protesters" laws.
 
2021-05-24 5:45:57 PM  
No way this will hold up in court. Social media sites do not have to permit politicians speech any more than any other person's speech. Social Media companies are by definition private. They aren't under FCC rules for political ads for the actual posts a candidate makes.  If it were an Ad, they might have a chance for holding it up, but because it's actually their speech, it's completely different.
My guess is that twitter and similar sites will develop a new restricted class of twitter handle that all politicians will be required to use. If you make posts under a non-'registered politician" account, then they will be exempt.

Actually, I just realized, they'll just force politicians to pay money to have an account. I don't think they've thought their cunning plan all the way through
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.