> Big Tech is prohibited from de-platforming Floridian political candidates.
> Any Floridian can block any candidate they don’t want to hear from, and that is a right that belongs to each citizen — it’s not for Big Tech companies to decide.
What nonsense. Why are politicians some special class of people?
I'm glad that social media platforms remove people violating community guidelines, whatever they are. I don't want people here on HN who do nothing but post flamebait, and I don't want people on Twitter who do nothing but post hate speech. I don't want platforms to be required to host any and all people.
But it's critical that politicians can reach us by whatever means we're using. They are a special class of people, because they're the people we're choosing to represent us. If a political candidate can't reach an audience because they don't agree politically with the platform providers, that's a big fucking problem for democracy.
I'm not saying I like the idea, but it's vastly better to me than to have the Overton window chosen by the platform provider. If you can propose a way to stop bad-faith candidates from abusing it, that'd be a great thing, but it's secondary to preserving the ability for political candidates to state their positions, whatever they are.
Is this a problem currently? I am not aware of any political candidate not being able to state their position, whatever they are.
It’s even pretty cheap to do so with the advent of the internet, cheaper and easier than it has ever been.
I don't know whether the rule is necessary. But if it becomes so, I do believe a special rule for political candidates, as opposed to requiring all platforms to host all people, is the right choice.
I want politicians to post on whatever people are using to get information. Almost nobody I know my age is regularly watching the news on TV, or checking the local paper's website. They might have other channels, but they certainly don't have other channels with the same reach.
I read the bill but couldn't find the referrenced statute that defines deplatforming. It isn't clear to me if social media companies woyld be required to reinstate banned accounts of peoole who run for office or would be merely prevented from banning them.
I'm not sure I would classifying "deplatforming" them as a universally good way to hold politicians to account, but yeah, sure, platforms can shut you off when you are an endless fount of lies and propaganda.
Here's the argument. Democracy requires that politicians have the ability to contact potential voters. There are contribution limits as well as spending limits. In politics most of the money is spent trying to contact voters.
So tech companies banning some politicians but not others is a contribution in kind to a campaign.
The value of a verified Twitter account is far more than the direct contribution limit.
Therefore either all politicians should be allowed, or all must be banned from Twitter.
The FEC is unable to do its job because the Senate hasn't been confirming appointments.
So now states are trying to pass laws to fill the gap.
Are there protections for other protected groups? It seems like it's just piecemealing special privileges rather than creating a good framework.
You realize a business isn't a person?
Edit: The core purpose would be much better served by a user "bill of rights" that protects all users against capricous and arbitrary decisions to revoke access with zero explanation.
Sadly this is a huge trend to score political points right now. For example, I think there was a bill providing extra protections to Asian Americans, and a referendum in PA to add race based protection to the state constitution. The protections already exist, so it's just political theater.
Edit: Why downvote?