DeSantis Posts His Ws Online as Florida Senate Passes Anti-Tech-Censorship Bill

Big.

The Florida Senate passed legislation requiring social media companies to publish standards for use and abide by them when it comes to de-platforming users Monday.

The legislation carries heavy fines and the threat of lawsuits.

Big Tech platforms face $100,000 a day fines if they de-platform a statewide candidates and $10,000 a day for other candidates.

In 2018, Matt Caldwell, the losing candidate for Florida Agriculture Commissioner was de-platformed for his pro NRA ad which YouTube removed for almost a day.

"They were able to take a whole segment of free press away, saying we don't want to hear those words; we don't want top hear that speech. And we're going to de-platform you. This bill fixes that," said Senator Kelli Stargel.

The bill creates a private action for lawsuit against tech companies for cases of deplatforming.

Idiot corporatists will make the same claim they did with the South Dakota bill to protect girl's sports: they will say this is a "bonanza for trial lawyers' or something.

But the reason we dislike lawsuits is that it makes decisions more expensive.

Before dismissing the creation of a private right lawsuit out of hand, we should ask ourselves: do we want the action being penalized by the possiblity of a lawsuit here to be as cheap and cost-free as possible, thus making that action more frequent?

Or would we prefer that that action be made a bit more costly, thus making companies think and weigh costs and benefits before deplatforming someone?

Efficiency is generally good, but if we're talking about rounding conservatives up and imprisoning them in workcamps, I'd support any measure that makes that process more inefficient.

Tim Pool noted that the bill requires something else, that only the most brain-dead, bought-off Tech Money Teat-Suckers will oppose: that tech companies must release a clear and comprehensive statement of what words/actions are prohibited, to stop the tech companies' double-standards and "evolving" standards (which always seem to punish conservatives while sparing leftwing SJWs).

There is no valid basis, at all, for objecting to the requirement that a company be open, honest, and transparent about its product. We demand this of every other producer.

Further the bill forbids changes in a tech monopolies' policy being applied retroactively -- they can change their standards, but must candidly disclose those changes, and can only apply them going forward, after a month.

Further, they cannot change their standards willy-nilly and case-by-case as they do now: they can only change them once per month. Period.

No more magically appearing new criteria about "hacked materials," which then disappears in a few days after its been used to stifle political speech (as in the case of the New York Post's Hunter Biden scoop).

We also usually make companies honor their contracts -- and a social media company's rules are indeed a contract between it and their users (customers).

I'm sorry, what is the "Reaganite case" against forcing monopolies to at least honor their contracts, if only for a calendar month (before rewriting the contract)?

But I'm sure the brain-dead, bought-off Tech Bitches will argue that it's against American values to create and enforce a truth-in-advertising standard for their tech patrons.

National Review hasn't gotten its marching orders from FaceBook, Google, and Twitter (and the Chamber of Commerce, and AEI, and their various corporate overlord donors) yet.

But I'm sure when those marching orders come in, they'll be making The Conservative Case for Driving Conservative Speech Out of the Public Square Using Secret Courts and Changing Rules.

posted by Ace at 06:08 PM

| Access Comments