The Florida Deplatforming Law Is Unconstitutional
eff.org
eff.org
I'd like to see transparent moderation logs first and foremost.
These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet.
It's funny when you hear the "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" then the same crowd comes by and says, "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!"
When did we start caring about corporation rights more than people's rights?
How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in?
> These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet.
They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for?
> "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A"
You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains.
> "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!"
That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. A Gov forcing someone to amplify the opinions of people in power is an ethical abomination that the 1A protects all of us from.
That's the articles take, not mine. I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished.
> They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for even more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for?
How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed at all if it threatens the narrative, that's the problem.
What are you calling for? Do you like the status quo? I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them. I want transparency.
> You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains.
The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. I can want companies to abide by this value. When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now? Maybe it's time we apply those same restrictions to it because it's nearly an extension of the government.
> That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs.
Unless you're a baker.
Noone can go after poor little small business private-entity Twitter who has done nothing wrong at all. Got it.
Just because you agree with the censorship now, doesn't mean it won't turn on you later.
A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech.
> How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed period, that's the problem.
That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it.
However, you see other media outlets that aren't amplifying opinions you like. You advocate this FL law that aims to force them to. This a tyrannical effort.
You are not Twitter or Facebook. Stop pretending these giant social behemoths are people, they are not.
> That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it.
Google deplatformed The Federalist, Press California, and Parler just recently, not a great example to use.
The problem is that people who have such opinions refuse to understand that they have made a category error and how broken their premises are.
This isn't an idea. It is a constitutional fact, one that is self-evident by reading the amendment.
> I can want companies to abide by this value.
Sure. Want away. I support your right to want things.
> When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now?
Different things are mashed here. Public square implies public (Gov owned) property. A Gov official that posts a comment on my blog wouldn't transform my blog into a Gov owned entity. It would be a disaster if it did because it would become trivial for any Gov offical to seize my entire blog.
> (The 1A protects private entities from Govs.) Unless you're a baker.
I have friends who work at banks. None have mentioned that their 1A rights are being violated by any government. Should I ask them directly?
The argument is the government is mixing in with these social media behemoths, especially Twitter. It's more than some official using your blog. If you are kicked off one or any of these networks you basically lose access to your government officials and companies that choose to do their business there. There are no legit alternatives, these social media behemoths are so big they are becoming a town square for communication. They should be regulated as such.
> I have friends who work at banks.
I said baker. I was alluding to the case that forced the Christian bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Dang. My fault for posting w/o my glasses.
I find the case problematic. I base that on my support of a LGBT nightclub in AU that banned binaries.
I also expect to be considering these issues for a long time.
> The argument is the government is mixing in with these social media behemoths, especially Twitter. It's more than some official using your blog.
I don't see how this makes Gov-compelled speech constitutional or in any way wise.
> If you are kicked off one or any of these networks you basically lose access to your government officials and companies that choose to do their business there.
People behind banned accounts lost the ability to tweet from that one account. "lose access" hints at being unable to read tweets or being unable to tweet from other accounts. It's a fairly poor description of what happened.
I call for a trend that results in mega corporations publicizing internal procedures that have a meaningful, lasting impact on the public. This information would allow us to better understand how we're being affected by their policies.
I also call for folks banned by Twitter to embrace capitalism and build their own competing platform. This seems a more reasonable approach than having Govs mandate speech.
> Do you like the status quo?
I do not like the current trend of Gov officials, of both parties, to try to gain more power over speech.
> I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them.
You can want that. It is unconstitutional for Govs to mandate they carry certain speech, however.
> I want transparency.
Me too. I believe my top remark here addresses that in a principled way.
I agree, but a step further, transparent moderation logs.
> I also call for folks banned by Twitter to embrace capitalism and build their own platform.
Ah yes the "build your own" theory. Build your own bank (Gab has gone through 10+ banks), build your own search engine, build your own app store (Parler found out the hard way), build your own economy. Monopolies and network effects be damned!
Soon we'll just balkanize the entire country into two so liberal companies don't have to have icky conservatives on their platforms or in earshot.
Your other points were addressed in my reply to your other 2 adjacent comments.
Capitalism poster children - the supreme examples - are those who aren't afraid to keep trying until they overcome the challenges.
I believe the term Trump used to describes the ones complain instead was Losers. Or maybe it's Failures or Quitters some other derogatory.
I got a service call. Out. Maybe back later. It's been very internety.
I believe the reason is that few-to-no super wealthy RW interests are lining up to fund a Gab-like echo chamber.
As far as hosts go, if A-H say "We'd prefer you not amplify misinformation here", that's business. No whingy snowflakes here. We'll go to I-Z (and the 500 Dr.Suess letters that come after) until we find one that does.
This is certainly doable. Far more harmful stuff is hosted every day.
This confuses two different uses of 'public'.
Twitter is a publicly held company - it's shares are held by the people who bought them.
Town square implies Gov owned property, that is set aside for the use of everyone.
> Should FB be transparent? And NextDoor? Then the public should be able see the data.
I would very much like to see public-manipulation data be made available. To mandate this w/o causing broader harms would require a great deal of time and deliberation by people who are actually qualified to do so.
RE: Maybe it's a town square...so you're saying that FB and Twitter should hand over 100% of all data on all users to the federal govt without a subpoena, you know like the traffic cams, and other public surveilance devices they likely have as well as cops, security, etc in a "town square"...
So the government should have as much access to Twitter and control over twitter that the city would have over a town square, am I getting this straight?
> 471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by
> 472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment
> 473 complex as defined in s. 509.013.
The bill includes an exception for companies that own theme parks, which I for one am entirely in favor of.
Move Fast And Break Things - The Rollercoaster
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/...
By companies that own theme parks you mean major donors to FL state republicans.
ref: https://www.citizen.org/article/song-of-suppression-disney-f...
> if a candidate for office is suspended or banned from social media during an election, the public needs to know why, and and the candidate needs a process to appeal the decision
In a case like this company should be investigated (same way as a foreign agent meddling in elections), potentially fined and denied a licence to operate as a social media.
Gov-issued Social media licenses aren't a thing - excepting dictatorial-leaning countries like the UAE.
Introducing them would be a very Big Gov thing to do.
Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech seems like a poor solution to the problem of corporations that wield too much power over us.
> Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech
Could you elaborate on how would adding checks on social media platform operations would compromise everyone's speech? Looking at standards set by gun regulations, I can't agree about unconstitutionality either.
I don't need to.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech
The Constitution declares that Gov can't compel or restrict speech. Not even if that effort is labeled as 'adding checks'.
> I believe that we are losing ability to combat harm done by mega-corporations in general
Sure. This has always been the case. Monopolies, duopolies, anti-consumer collusion, etc is all anti-capitalistic. An historically effective measure against those types of anti-capitalistic corporate behavior is to break up those corps.
As far as the ongoing harm done to the public interest by major corps in general, that's mostly beyond what I'm looking to get into, ATM.
How about if a human being is suspended or banned from social media at any time, that person should know why.
Why make snowflake pols a protected class?
Can Florida create laws that are enforcable over entities with no ties to Florida ?
Also, I like the 'move fast and break things' roller coaster idea!
Anyway, be interesting to see how it all plays out...
Past state AG efforts against national corporations indicates (to me) that actually being HQ'd in that state isn't necessary.
of note: Twitter has an office in Miami.
However: Regardless of how the state expected to enforce this, the 1A issue makes all of it a moot discussion.
Big tech could exclude Florida if they choose.