TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Florida governor signs bill to ban Big Tech 'deplatforming'

64 点作者 dsnr将近 4 年前

20 条评论

35fbe7d3d5b9将近 4 年前
&gt; The legislation includes a clause that exempts a company &quot;that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex&quot;.<p>Amazing.
评论 #27277455 未加载
评论 #27277503 未加载
评论 #27277474 未加载
评论 #27277382 未加载
评论 #27277462 未加载
评论 #27277763 未加载
评论 #27277640 未加载
chmod600将近 4 年前
This may not be effective and may not stand up to a court challenge. But it&#x27;s the first in a salvo.<p>Watch to see the kinds of arguments big tech is forced to make when they fight this law. Those arguments will be used against them later.<p>FB, et al., enjoy immunity (criminal and civil) from the illegal stuff their users post, and that is their weakness. There is nothing in the Constitution ensuring that they keep that immunity (or at least the First Amendment hasn&#x27;t been interpreted to say that yet).<p>It&#x27;s actually similar to how the PLCAA (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Protection_of_Lawful_Commerc...</a>) protects gun manufacturers from being sued into oblivion. Rights don&#x27;t mean much when exercising them means you will get buried in frivilous suits.
评论 #27277958 未加载
bradford将近 4 年前
I don&#x27;t see it pointed out in this article, but the de-platforming ban appears to be limited to state political candidates:<p>&quot;The new law will ... impose fines of $250,000 per day on any social media company that de-platforms candidates running for statewide office. It would also impose a $25,000 a day fine on companies that de-platform candidates running for local offices. ... DeSantis said any Floridian can block a candidate they don’t want to see online and it’s not up to Big Tech companies to make those decisions for the public.&quot;<p>Seems odd to take such a moral stand on this issue, but only offer protection to political candidates&#x2F;politicians.<p>(from <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nbc-2.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;state&#x2F;2021&#x2F;05&#x2F;24&#x2F;desantis-signs-bill-that-aims-to-stop-social-media-censorship-on-politicians&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nbc-2.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;state&#x2F;2021&#x2F;05&#x2F;24&#x2F;desantis-signs-bill-...</a>)
评论 #27278825 未加载
评论 #27278384 未加载
评论 #27286884 未加载
评论 #27278807 未加载
justbored123将近 4 年前
I&#x27;m having a really hard time trying to understand the level of entitlement that takes to believe that you can have a service from a private for-profit business without paying for it, like Facebook, YouTube, etc. and they are forced to give it to you without any say on it, no matter what, even if it&#x27;s not advertiser friendly and ruins their business.
评论 #27277853 未加载
评论 #27277874 未加载
Grustaf将近 4 年前
&gt;Imagine if the government required a church to allow user-created comments or third-party advertisements promoting abortion on its social media page. - Steve DelBianco, NetChoice&#x27;s chief executive<p>It sounds like he&#x27;s arguing that the social networks are making editorial decisions, isn&#x27;t that what they&#x27;re desperately claiming not to do?
评论 #27277611 未加载
评论 #27277707 未加载
softwaredoug将近 4 年前
So if I have an online magazine, I can&#x27;t choose what kinds of authors I want to invite? How is that any different than reddit deciding what communities to have&#x2F;not have...
评论 #27277381 未加载
评论 #27277386 未加载
评论 #27277463 未加载
评论 #27277564 未加载
评论 #27277456 未加载
qzw将近 4 年前
This law is largely a way for FL governor DeSantis to further solidify his conservative bonafides ahead of a likely 2024 run for president (assuming a certain former president doesn&#x27;t enter the field). Whether it stands up in court eventually doesn&#x27;t make the slightest difference.
评论 #27278239 未加载
评论 #27277618 未加载
valine将近 4 年前
How can this possibly hold up in court? Doesn&#x27;t &quot;big tech&quot; have a right to free speech?
评论 #27278381 未加载
评论 #27277417 未加载
评论 #27277489 未加载
评论 #27277421 未加载
Workaccount2将近 4 年前
I just can&#x27;t take these people seriously.<p>They rallied hard against net neutrality because &quot;the government can&#x27;t tell private companies [ISPs] what to do&quot;<p>Now they want the government to moderate speech on private platforms. That&#x27;s hypocrisy that even a 2nd grader could point out.
评论 #27278196 未加载
gnoll_of_gozag将近 4 年前
brb creating 100 alts to spam every comment section on twitter with images of frogs and crows. they cant ban all of me for 14 days
sjs382将近 4 年前
Clearly violates the commerce clause. No chance of this sticking, even with the current courts.
endisneigh将近 4 年前
Out of curiosity - is it possible for UPS&#x2F;FedEx&#x2F;USPS to stop one from sending mail through their services? I consider UPS&#x2F;FedEx to be sort of the physical analog to Facebook and Twitter.
评论 #27277529 未加载
willis936将近 4 年前
In other news: entirety of FL government forgets about the 1st ammendment.
评论 #27277562 未加载
SteveNuts将近 4 年前
Good luck to them when this finally hits the Supreme court.
评论 #27277364 未加载
评论 #27277479 未加载
trutannus将近 4 年前
I&#x27;ve always found it funny how the most vocal detractors of deplatforming are generally right-learning politicians and pundits, some of whom have publicly stated how much they like Ayn Rand.<p>The irony here is that Rand pretty explicitly supports the right <i>to</i> deplatform people in <i>The Virtue of Selfishness</i>. Up until recently it was a common attitude in conservative political circles that forcing someone to publish content they disagreed with was <i>itself</i> the violation of a right. See below:<p>&quot;The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas. Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.&quot;<p>I struggle to find a single source that the American right likes to cite which would go in the opposite direction, given that more right-leaning conceptualizations of rights tends to be a <i>freedom from</i> as opposed to a <i>freedom to</i> right. Given this framework, social media companies have a <i>freedom from</i> providing a platform for ideas they find objectionable.
评论 #27277724 未加载
Black101将近 4 年前
better then doing nothing... they should classify them as pipes and unable to hide content from their platforms (HN could benefit from that too, a lot, if not more)
koheripbal将近 4 年前
I wonder how people who support deplatforming would react if their ISP cut their internet service?
评论 #27277452 未加载
评论 #27278071 未加载
评论 #27277687 未加载
评论 #27277466 未加载
评论 #27277491 未加载
darksaints将近 4 年前
I wonder if he&#x27;ll also sign a ban on NFL deplatforming. Probably not.
Causality1将近 4 年前
This has nothing to do with censorship. He knows it won&#x27;t survive a courtroom. This is just DeSantis doing the equivalent of virtue-signaling to his base.
评论 #27277506 未加载
RickJWagner将近 4 年前
Also in the news today:<p>Conservative congressman Tom Cotton is showing a headline (I think from CNN) that bashes him for repeating the &#x27;debunked&#x27; idea that corona may have come from the Wahun lab. Of course that theory is very much alive and viable today.<p>Republican Rand Paul is upset that some songwriter made a Twitter post offering to buy drinks for someone who &#x27;finishes the job his neighbor started&#x27;, a reference to the neighbor who physically attacked Paul a few years back. Paul correctly points out that Twitter is <i>supposed</i> to have a policy against threats and violence.<p>So yes, there seems to be something there.