https://www.theepochtimes.com/florida-anti-censorship-proposal-tries-to-sidestep-section-230-protections_3688544.html Section 230 shields internet platforms from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” Some have argued that social media companies have interpreted the part “otherwise objectionable” too broadly and that it wasn’t meant to encompass political speech the companies claim to find “objectionable.” The Florida proposal takes a different approach. It would first require that the companies publish their content policing standards. Major social media like Facebook and Google-owned YouTube don’t fully explain their content policies, claiming it would lead to users dodging them. The law would apparently force them to fully reveal their standards. Users would receive a “detailed explanation and written notice after being deplatformed or shadowbanned,” said Florida State house Speaker Chris Sprowls at a Feb. 2 press conference with DeSantis announcing the bill proposal. The law would also “stop frequent changes to terms of use, clearly communicate and obtain prior consent to changes,” DeSantis’s office said in a Feb. 2 press release. Further, the bill would ban “arbitrarily censoring and/or de-platforming users.” That could possibly stop the companies from censoring on an ad hoc basis, beyond what their content rules say. “When social media companies apply these standards unequally on users, this is discrimination, pure and simple,” DeSantis said during the presser. “Can you imagine tolerating this kind of behavior in banking or in healthcare or in other industries?” Thought I'd just copy/paste the important part of the article for people.
thumb_up11thumb_downchat_bubble3

More from Gaigous

https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-democrats-threaten-to-trash-constitution-to-ensure-conviction-of-trump-jonathan-turley_3688441.html "According to Turley, Raskin’s statement also implied that “Trump needed to testify or his silence is evidence of guilt” and that “under this theory, any response other than conceding the allegations would trigger this response and allow the House to use the silence of the accused as an inference of guilt.” He wrote: “The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.” The scholar, who offered testimony during the first impeachment inquiry in 2019, noted that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declares that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This is a cornerstone of our civilization, with this I believe they will have overextended to a level that many will no longer ignore.
130 views · Feb 7th

More from Gaigous

https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-democrats-threaten-to-trash-constitution-to-ensure-conviction-of-trump-jonathan-turley_3688441.html "According to Turley, Raskin’s statement also implied that “Trump needed to testify or his silence is evidence of guilt” and that “under this theory, any response other than conceding the allegations would trigger this response and allow the House to use the silence of the accused as an inference of guilt.” He wrote: “The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.” The scholar, who offered testimony during the first impeachment inquiry in 2019, noted that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declares that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This is a cornerstone of our civilization, with this I believe they will have overextended to a level that many will no longer ignore.
130 views · Feb 7th