It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Tech has taken it's first punch

page: 1
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on May, 25 2021 @ 05:49 AM
link   
www.foxbusiness.com...


The Big Tech Bill, as DeSantis calls it, allows residents to fight back against de-platforming and censorship, allowing them to sue tech companies for up to $100,000 in damages for each proven claim in a bid to ensure companies are more transparent about their content moderation practices.

The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday.

The Florida Attorney General will also be able to bring action against tech companies that violate the law, which prohibits the de-platforming of political candidates as well.


I am not sure this will totally fly, but it sounds like a good idea. It's fair, in that if FORCES big tech to be fair, or pay some cash out. I have heard both sides of this argument and I agree that private companies have the right to do what they want. But when they conspire against the nation based on political ideologies, it's no longer "fair". It's kind of pathetic that there needs to be a law to compel companies to 'be fair', but when your mantra is BAMN, I suppose that's just par for the course.

I'm sure this will be challenged, and how far it goes will be interesting. But being on the receiving end of the conspiracy, I personally feel that this is a step in the right direction.

OR, is it OK to silence those who oppose you?



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The law of unintended consequences is going to have fun with this.

Just like when people lost their minds when the Church of Satan can put up a statue or offer to give public prayer people are going to go as equally crazy when some pervert is allowed to talk to your kids or some political wingnut gets to give you their wacko agenda unimpeded.

I have my popcorn.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 05:58 AM
link   
So can this site be sued for taking down someones posts if it's "inconsistent" with other posts being taken down?

What am I missing?
edit on 25-5-2021 by wheresthebody because: werdz



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I kind of like the part where it forces them to:




The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently


So as long as they act like they aren't partisan douche bags, they have no worries. it's when they act like they are now where the problems come in.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: wheresthebody
So can this site be sued for taking down someones posts?

What am I missing?


Likely this part:




The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

thanks, edited

still though?



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:04 AM
link   
You are right, it has the potential to go very far. South, very quick. But on the flip side, to focus in on the politics of the matter. Pun semi intended. These social media platforms do not really hide their political position now a days. And if your local diner no longer chose to serve let's say and Democrats due to the owner being a Trumper.
That would become viral news of discrimination very fast. It should be the same with these companies blacklist anyone who doesn't toe the part line. But unfortunately its charred by some, and ignored by the rest. That's under just the microscope of politics. A broader sense, yes I see some reall dregs using this to continue inappropriate and borderline illegal behavior. Or get paid for it.
reply to: AugustusMasonicus


+7 more 
posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: wheresthebody

it's the part where they all conspire together. Banning a sitting president is not the norm, in fact, it's the opposite of that. yet all of these companies did it at the same time. It's not possible to convince anyone that it wasn't a group effort.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I'm thinking any sort of monetary losses and fines on there part will simply be passed along to the consumer in the long run aka us.
edit on 25-5-2021 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

it will likely cost the users more. Which will have it's own set of challenges.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I kind of like the part where it forces them to:




The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently


So as long as they act like they aren't partisan douche bags, they have no worries. it's when they act like they are now where the problems come in.


Social media companies will simply find loopholes. Like declaring all discussion on limiting immigration as being hate speech, or by prohibiting any discussion of guns to stop 2a support. Anything to blanket stop conservative speech.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:10 AM
link   


Big Tech has taken it's first punch


Big Tech=Cabal Intelligence Agency front companies.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Yeah, looks nice on paper and it always works out simply when the government gets involved. How's your mail and your Obummercare?

If you don't think people are going to play the angles on this I can probably game a few scenarios for you.




edit on 25-5-2021 by AugustusMasonicus because: dey terk er election



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Thanks, is it about consistency between the platforms? Or just that each platform has to remain consistent to it's own standards?


Either way seems tricky to regulate.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: network dude

I'm thinking any sort of monetary losses and fines on there part will simply be passed along to the consumer in the long run aka us.


I'm thinking they will simply censor everyone in order to censor conservatives. That's the Liberal mindset after all. They absolutely will censor themselves in order to get Conservatives too.

Or they will use hate speech laws.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Social media companies will simply find loopholes. Like declaring all discussion on limiting immigration as being hate speech, or by prohibiting any discussion of guns to stop 2a support. Anything to blanket stop conservative speech.


Thanks for offering a couple of easy examples.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodswatcher
These social media platforms do not really hide their political position now a days.


Neither has your newspaper since forever.


And if your local diner no longer chose to serve let's say and Democrats due to the owner being a Trumper.


Political views are not a protected class, you can kick a Democrat out of your place if you want.


It's going to be fun watching the fauxservatives cheer for more laws/government though.



edit on 25-5-2021 by AugustusMasonicus because: dey terk er election



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

They wont censor everyone, that's just nuts, and would amount to them neutering themselves in the process.

$100,000 a pop is nothing to these people.

The cost will be passed along to the customer, as it always has been.

Just another way for way for somebody somewhere to make monies of the backs and minds of others imho.
edit on 25-5-2021 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: network dude

Thanks, is it about consistency between the platforms? Or just that each platform has to remain consistent to it's own standards?


Either way seems tricky to regulate.


I'd go with impossible, but it remains to be seen. I think anything that sheds lite on the real problem here is a good thing.



posted on May, 25 2021 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: wheresthebody
So can this site be sued for taking down someones posts if it's "inconsistent" with other posts being taken down?

What am I missing?


One's claim still has to pass the bar of convincing a lawyer that the target has enough money to work for free for a long period of time and that the case is winable.

I doubt many lawyers are going to be standing in line to sue this sight because a member here had a bad day.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join