True libtards can’t let Trump go

So I’m visiting my family for vacation and I saw an article about DeSantis signing a bill to hold tech companies liable for censorship.

This is literally not a political or partisan issue. Every fucking schmuck can agree that this should be happening. There is literally no personal motive for liberals to argue this. It’s strictly by virtue of left/right programmed dogmas.

The man instantly goes into a rage fueled rant about the Capital attack.

Again, topic of discussion here is social media. So I attempt to rationally correct him and ask why social media has anything to do with the capital attack if it happened due to people being at the capital and listening to Trump’s speech in person.

This only fuels his blind rage for Trump. So he half ass attempts to make a correlation which doesn’t exist in reply to a political discussion which never took place.

This is the leftist brain being broken in real time.

4 Likes

I just chuckle that ‘conservatives’ now find excuses for government to tell businesses how they should be ran. If FB wants to keep someone off, go for it. "Gay wedding cakes…’’ and all that blah blah.

Both sides are hypocrites, don’t get it twisted.

Can you explain how providing citizens of his state a means to hold a company liable for damages is telling the company how it should be ran?

Can you explain what damages occur? If a company doesn’t want to have someone on their platform and boots them, what ‘damages’ does that cause? If Kirk booted you off here (not that he would), how does that ‘damage’ you? I imagine you could point to the banning of politicians and say that hurts their chances to be elected, but that already exists. Private newspapers and magazines do not have to accept/allow ads, letters, classifieds, or postings from any individual, including political candidates and parties. This has already been upheld by the SCOTUS. Companies can choose what they allow and don’t allow on their platforms. They set the rules and you agree to them or you don’t. Don’t like it, go elsewhere. As a ‘libtard’ I was perfectly fine with the baker not making the gay wedding cake and I’m fine with companies determining who can use their services. Further, in the bill, they equate SM platforms to public utilities or common carriers. Well, common carriers (trains, airplanes, telephony companies, etc.) can also choose to deny service to people for not following their policies, so again…there is precedent.

From the bill:
“(6) Social media platforms hold a unique place in 74 preserving first amendment protections for all Floridians and 75 should be treated similarly to common carriers.”

Remind me where the 1st amendment applies to private citizens and/or companies? At no point has FB / twitter / insta / etc. ever prevented someone from going out their front door and screaming bizarre ramblings at neighbors walking by or calling their neighbors and telling them their anti-mask beliefs. People can say whatever they want, but FB doesn’t have to let them say it on their platform.

I understand they are different, but this is the same party (and specifically the Trumpian wing of GOP) as Devin Nunes that tried to stifle a twitter account because it parodies him and it hurt his fefes. Again, hypocrisy.

Last…I believe the bill is not serious and is virtue signalling (yes, the Right absolutely does it as well) and I support my belief by point out they added a provision which exempts companies that own theme parks; how much more on the nose can you be? So if TWTR wants to censor their platform ,they just need # Mountain and they’re good to go? That doesn’t feel like a serious stance in standing up for citizen’s speech with such a pro-tourism business ‘get out of jail free card.’

“The term does not include any information service, system, 470 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by 471 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment 472 complex as defined in s. 509.013.”

1 Like

Dude- just cause you comprehend the issue doesn’t mean you have the right to come on the OG and spell it out for a bunch of dimwitted mouth breathing lumps. Sheesh

2 Likes

You can’t let Trump go… can you?

2 Likes

Me? I let him go four months and six days ago. Been chillin’ since.

As for others…well…lol

1 Like

I like desantis and hope he’s the candidate in 2024 but agree with sprout on this.

What does piss me off though is a virtual monopoly like AWS from banning platforms like parlor.

2 Likes

To be fair, there’s a lot of conservatives that can’t let Trump go either.

First off nice spin on avoiding my question.

But I can think of a few scenarios. One being these companies “fact chekers” reporting false information that leads to attacks, defamation, or other injuries on a person or business. Ever see what a bunch of liberals can do to a companies online reviews from incorrect information being spread? It seems to me like a citizen can use this new legislation without ever posting or becoming a member of any platform. The first amendment may not protect a person from not being deplatformed by a private company. But it also doesn’t allow anybody else from saying whatever they want and make claims that are untrue, which included the companies themselves.

Twitter is being sued at the moment for refusing to take down child porn/ see trafficking videos. Seems like another strong case where somebody could claim damages

One could easily argue that social media is as much a utility based communication platform as Ma Bell, no? Ma Bell can’t disconnect your services for expressing unfavorable opinions.

Far different from a small bakery.

3 Likes

Very true.

Trump belongs in the rearview.

DeSantis 2024

No. Ma Bell was a pay service and a monopoly. Plenty of alternatives to FB and the pretty low barrier to entry to start a competitor.

AWS on the other hand is closer to a monopoly. Their banning of parlor was kind of bullshit.

That doesn’t seem to impact the argument of it being a utility. People in the general public rely on it for communication.

“any organization which provides services to the general public, although it may be privately owned. Public utilities include electric, gas, telephone, water, and television cable systems, as well as streetcar and bus lines.”

Social media could easily be argued as in that category.

Yeah, but they aren’t monopolies. Anyone can start one and compete against social media platforms. They aren’t even really close to monopolies. There is very little barrier to entry. Look what parlor did.

Now what is bullshit is the way AWS, which is vitlrtually a monopoly and is a service with a large barrier to entry, shut down parlor.

The monopoly part is an important distinction. Otherwise everything would be a utility.

1 Like

Any conservative I respect is mostly talking about small businesses. The govt always has and should regulate large powerful corporations with the power to influence large swathes of the electorate with propaganda

Yeah- aws seems to be more of a public service to me. Certainly a better argument.

Who draws the lines?

“If you don’t run it the way we say you’ll be fined”

Except that’s not what the legislation says at all. Nobody is fining anybody.