DeSantis vs. Disney

What is incredible? The fact you don’t understand that it is true that Disney has an obligation to respect Florida if they want special privileges. Yet at the same time it is true that they do not have to honor that obligation? Hence Florida who does not have an obligation to provide special privileges may decide to take those privileges away?

 

Oh please believe this. Yell it from the top of your lungs!

DeSantis and pubs will Thank You!

 

There are legitimate reasons to oppose the bill that have nothing to do with any perversion you guys are concocting.

Regardless, the bill and the retaliation are 2 different issues.

 

It's not that I don't buy it, it's that this isn't why she sent that out.

She doesn't support Musk's vision for Twitter, she doesn't want it to be a more open platform so she wants to send the message that she wants to "hold them accountable."

That is at bear minimum an attempt to intimidate social media under threat of government action unless you do what they want.

What do you think she means when she says "this deal is dangerous for our Democracy?"

I don't think she means she's worried Twitter went from being controlled by one group of wealthy individuals to another wealthy individual (or group of wealthy individuals, depending on what Musk wants to do with Twitter).

 

"Florida" is not equal to "What Ronnie D. says it is."

 

I was assuming that she was against concentrating the power of twitter into fewer hands. She seems to have been on this crusade for a while:

Break Up Big Tech | Elizabeth Warren

 

There is a gaping hole in your logic.

Warren has been harping on this topic for years. Too much wealth concentrated in few individual hands is a problem. Big tech needs to itself do better to address criminals and harassment on their platforms. She’s basically just repeating what she’s been saying for years, the Musk Twitter acquisition gives her another opportunity to express the same thing. This acquisition actually sort of hits directly on both of her points.

Can you provide a link to Desantis stating this development district was problematic to the state prior to his retaliation? Anything at all to show it wasn’t just pure retaliation with no other policy consideration given? I’m
Thinking you can’t show this at all, so any reply will no doubt be some inane deflection.

 

What line? Is freedom of speech now a line?

 

She said "this deal is dangerous to our Democracy." Then, in the same tweet she said we need to hold Big Tech accountable. That can be seen as retaliation for this deal.

Either that or she's being disingenuous and using a recent deal to plug a policy point that she's been pushing for years. It's about as common in politics as days that end in "y," but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be noted.

I said I don't buy that argument, but that's what I'd imagine the DeSantis legal team will be saying. Don't try to impute that argument on me.

 

Their obligation is spelled out clearly in their charter and they continue to exceed their obligations. Nowhere does it say that they must not oppose the governor or make public statements.

 

You raise good points, as you have repeatedly throughout this thread.

That said, how does a wealth tax contribute to anti-trust measures? I can see how regulation can, but a wealth tax to "hold Big Tech accountable" seems awfully retaliatory to me.

Here's another older statement from Warren when she was running for President:

"Big tech companies cannot continue to hide behind free speech while profiting off of hate speech and disinformation campaigns. That’s why I’ve called out Facebook for operating as a disinformation-for-profit machine and why I’m committed to unwinding Facebook’s anti-competitive mergers and cracking down on practices that allow the company to undermine our democracy."

Should social media companies be legally responsible for misinformation and hate speech? 2020 Democrats weigh in.

 

She obviously does not agree with Musk’s take on Twitter “free speech”, which on the surface would seem to be open to KKK types, Nazi’s, foreign agitators, etc… provided they aren’t bots. I fully support Musk’s idea to radically crack down on bots and authenticate that posts are by humans. Problem is whether if it’s technically possible or not, it’s not like anyone has successfully eliminated spam (whether via phone calls, texts, emails, or any other modern internet communication platform). So I have some skepticism about whether Musk actually gets this done (are people going to be ok with verifying their ID?). Is Twitter the same platform if “unverified” accounts can’t create any user engagement?

Now as it currently stands, if Musk completed the deal he would have the right to control the speech on the platform, just as the current leadership can increase or decrease control as they so choose. The only real limit is their section 230 exposure as far as liability. Warren obviously believes there should additional liability for platforms that fail to police themselves. Musk appears to take an “anything goes” approach with no liability to the platform.

In either case, this is all bonafide policy discussion. The issue with Desantis is he’s taking retribution on an entirely different issue. Speaking out over “don’t say gay bill” leads to corruptly and punitively rescinding a development district (to the financial detriment of the counties!).


To make this like for like, Warren and the dems would have to propose something unrelated, like singling out Tesla and rescinding their EV tax credits because of something Musk does or says on Twitter. Which similar to Desantis’ actions, would have no real policy basis, other than as political retribution.

 

I think I see what you’re saying, and I believe the answer comes back to what is the retaliation for. Indeed, Warren seems to come from a tradition of thinking of income inequality is bad and the immense gains of the ultra rich are often ill gotten. In this sense, we can view those new taxes as retaliation.

But again, this is a common good problem. She isn’t viewing those gains as being stolen from her own self. In this view, it’s more like regulating a factory that poisons a public river.

I’m not necessarily in agreement with Warren, but I don’t think her motives are corrupt.

 

So let's say that you speak out against a bill passed by the US Congress. Let's also say that I find one of your statements is misrepresenting the bill (you often misrepresent statistics on here, so that isn't at all a stretch). Would it be reasonable of me to say that you don't respect the United States of America at that point? Or does that sort of behavior only apply to those you view as political opponents of yourself?

 

It is called not misrepresenting to push a false narrative.

So no. I am not kidding. Being disingenuous is an unacceptable act by any person or corporation.

 

The why they are no longer pushing a false narrative. They understand that is an unacceptable way to act.

 

You can disagree with the bill for sure. Please push that. And yes it is a separate issue to misrepresent by pushing a false narrative. That is unacceptable behavior. But some want to look the other way from this reality.

 

Florida is acting within its Rights. As is Disney. The good news is that more people support Florida here. And fewer people support misrepresentation and pushing a false narrative.