Seems increasingly clear that DeSantis has staked out his lane: if Trump isn’t “available” in ’ 24, he will be the Replacement Trump. And if Trump is indeed in the mix, DeSantis intends to be a bigger and better Trump than Trump.
That’s not what that bill says at all. The words conservative or Republican are nowhere to be found. The main thrust concerns candidates for public office.
To read the full bill, click here. (PDF)
See, here’s the problem with mediocre journalists, and also with message board users who just parrot mediocre journalists without taking the time to look into the issue themselves.
Nowhere in the law signed by DeSantis is political affiliation mentioned. I just read all 22 pages of the bill, and at no stage does it mention words like liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican. The provisions of this law would apply exactly the same to the social-media deplatforming or censorship of a liberal political candidate and a conservative political candidate.
Don’t get me wrong: the law is fucking idiotic, Ron DeSantis is an moron, and I have no doubt that Florida Republicans, whose state collective IQ is about 306, voted for the law on the assumption that it would be more likely to protect conservative politicians. But the law itself is not written in such a way as to single out any particular political viewpoint for protection or punishment.
EDIT: And while I was reading the law and writing my post, @mikecurtis got in ahead of me.
Idiotic law and I hope (never happen) Facebook, Twitter and every other platform just outright blocks every Florida ISP until the law is repealed. Let DeSantis deal with the pissed off folks at Disney.
I don’t know that I agree.
Social media has indeed become the town square of today. And a candidate without a presence is at a distinct disadvantage.
The bill as written only covers the time of actual candidacy. And the platforms could treat all candidates alike by temporarily putting all the accounts into a special category with features like parental warnings and no sharing or some such.
Not sure if you saw, but one interesting part of the law is that it carves out an exception for any software or system “operated by a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex.” Talk about pandering!
Still a bad bill. Free speech does not include a free bullhorn.
Thinking about this, it just occurred to me that, if the law doesn’t get struck down in the federal courts (a strong possibility), then Facebook, Twitter, etc. should get together and create a First Amendment Theme Park and Entertainment Complex in Florida. 
Pretty simple; don’t spread disinformation, and social media companies won’t ban your ass.
Hmmm, which political party finds that such an onerous condition…?
That’s not necessarily true. There are lots of things that can get you banned that prob shouldn’t.
So this law will prevent bannings for nudity violations?
No
You said don’t spread disinformation and you won’t get banned. That’s not true.
Really?
How on Earth could you interpret this as an exclusive statement?
Oh, yeah.
So you mean “this example that doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of politicians on social media refutes your position on the topic of politicians on social media”.
Your typical “I’m a contrarian!” position is noted.
The debate about where social media should fit in political discourse has been around since long before an idiot ex politician got themselves banned for spreading misinformation. Just because the Florida bill was no doubt prompted by the desire to get Trump back on, doesn’t mean that there aren’t larger ramifications. There is a bigger issue at play here. One that deserves actual debate.
OK, I’ll bite. Why should a state have the right to fine private corporations for withholding their services from people who they deem to be abusing them?
I don’t know that a state should fine a private company for what happens on their site. And, quite frankly, I have a lot of trouble with any govt deciding what is and is not acceptable speech.
But…we have to take note that Twitter and Facebook didn’t ban Trump until after he left office even though he had amassed enough violations that would’ve gotten anyone else banned much earlier. The clear implication, to me, is that political speech is and should be treated differently than other speech. And that banning him earlier could’ve possibly affected the election.
So, where does that leave us? Should Trump be let back on if he’s reelected to office? While he’s campaigning? What about other candidates? Does it only apply to national ones? What if a Qanon believer is running? What if a woman who was banned for her breastfeeding pics decides to run?
I don’t really have any answers to these questions. But, I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as some seem to think.
Why do you think these people should be forced to provide their services to anyone?
So they want the government to force private companies to provide services for free without oversight or condition.
Sounds like Communism to me.
The problem is, with all the noise, how can we objectively assess what is deceitful? I mean, there seems to be a great deal of disagreement about valid information. Some people avidly claim that lower taxes on the top end is a gain for the economy, to the point that a lot of people take it as gospel, yet the real-world evidence indicates that claim is utter bullshit.
How do we objectively identify dangerous lies? Do we need some sort of Ministry of Information to properly vet our words?