> 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 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'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.
No, perhaps you're right. I was originally responding specifically to the argument that politicians shouldn't be treated differently from other people, but I've let my point drift.
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.
The law merely requires you to be registered as a candidate and only prevents deplatforming between when you register and when the election occurs.
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.
Politicians have always been special. For reference, see human history. This is why government needs to be constructed with actual mechanisms to hold politicians to account and root out corruption. The kind of self-dealing and rules-for-thee shit that we used to take seriously. The media should be the last line of defense against corruption in politicians. Because we are seeing corruption in the open now is because those other government mechanisms are failing.
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.
Politicians already have special rights and restrictions.
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.
Television and radio have the right to decline political ads from non candidates and if they think the content is inappropriate or violates the legal rights of another. Are there protections like that in this bill?
Are there protections for other protected groups? It seems like it's just piecemealing special privileges rather than creating a good framework.
What's wrong with hating anyway? Hate is a perfectly normal emotion. It's okay to hate. A lot of things are worthy of our hate. I think it's strange how people are expected to not express any negative emotions at all.
The law means the companies can still decide to ban regular peoole at will, but cannot decide to ban politicians. Thus a special protection for politicians is enshrined in this law.
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.
Because everyone is special and deserves their own special protections above the general population.
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.
> 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?