On Monday, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law, a legislation that will make it illegal for social media platforms and any of the big tech, to ban anyone in Florida.

The legislation, termed Stop Social Media Censorship Act, was prompted by allegations of marginalization on social media by conservatives, who believe that the “Big Tech” has been working on the side of the left to silence their members. Thus, it has become illegal for large technology companies to remove candidates for office from their platforms in the run-up to an election. It would also make it easier for Florida’s attorney general and individuals to sue “Big Tech.”

“These platforms have become our public square,” DeSantis, who touted the legislation as first of its kind, said at a lectern with a sign that read “STOP Big Tech Censorship,” noting that “Big Tech oligarchs” have censored debates about the pandemic and policies that officials put in place to contain the deadly virus, such as lockdowns.

“Silicon Valley is acting as a council of censors; they cancel people when mobs come after somebody. They will pull them down,” he said.

Under the legislation, users that post content against any platform’s rule would have 30 days to continue using the platform before getting kicked off, DeSantis explained.

The legislation says any user who has been de-platformed would be allowed access to retrieve all of their information and content.

Any platform that removes a candidate without giving them 30 days warning may be fined up to $250,000 per day if those individuals are running for a statewide office and up to $25,000 per day if they are running for any other office. DeSantis said courts may award up to $100,000 in damages for each proven claim.

“We are protecting Floridians’ ability to speak and express their opinions. This will lead to more speech, not less speech because speech that’s inconvenient to the narrative will be protected,” he said.

This move by Republican states to outlaw deplatforming of social media users got a push after Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube banned former president Donald Trump, and Amazon kicked Parler, a conservative social platform, out of its platform, following the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.

A flurry of opposition greeted the decisions of the Big Tech, instigating a move for state laws that will criminalize such actions in the future.

But the legislation, which is likely going to be challenged in court, has a little chance to be enforced.

“This is so obviously unconstitutional, you wouldn’t even put it on an exam,” said A. Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami.

Under well established Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment prohibits private entities from being forced to publish or broadcast someone else’s speech. Prohibiting “deplatforming” of political candidates would likely be construed as an unconstitutional must-carry provision.

“This law looks like a political freebie,” Froomkin said. “You get to pander, and nothing bad happens, because there’s no chance this will survive in court.”

The Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that generally holds online platforms immune from liability over their content moderation decisions, is another reason why Florida’s law may not make it out of court.

Section 230, just like other federal status, makes any state law that conflicts with it void. That means, any attempt to enforce the Florida new law would be futile.

During his presidency, Trump had attempted to quash Section 230 using executive order, after Twitter labeled his tweet prior to his ban. Social media platforms retain the right “to restrict access to or availability of material” as long as they do so in good faith, under the Section 230.

However, there is a question of whether the right to moderate “free speech,” which has been the bone of contention, is protected by the First Amendment.

TechCrunch noted that while there is a great deal of circumstantial precedent and analysis, the problem of “are moderation practices of social media companies protected by the First Amendment” is as yet unsettled. Legal scholars and existing cases fall strongly on the side of “yes,” but there is no single definitive precedent that Facebook or Twitter can point to.

The First Amendment argument starts with the idea that although social media are very unlike newspapers or book publishers, they are protected in much the same way by the Constitution from government interference.

“Free speech” is a term that is interpreted extremely liberally, but if a company spending money is considered a protected expression of ideas, it’s not a stretch to suggest that the same company applying a policy of hosting or not hosting content should be as well. If it is, then the government is prohibited from interfering with it beyond very narrow definitions of unprotected speech (think shouting “fire” in a crowded theater). That would sink Florida’s law on constitutional grounds.

While the new law appears to stand no chance in court, it is likely going to put the First Amendment to test.

While payment systems have focused on mobile phones recently, auto disruption or a new taste in payment services seems to on the way.

Hyundai built an in-car payment system that will debut in its next all-electric Ioniq 5 crossover, allowing drivers to discover and pay for EV charging, food, and parking – the latest example of automakers coming up with new ways to generate cash and provide customers with amenities normally associated with smartphones, TechCrunch has the story.

The payments system will start with Dominoes, ParkWhiz, and Chargehub when the car arrives in North America in fall 2021, according to the business. Several new features were revealed during the Ioniq 5’s North American premiere, including an in-car payment system.

The payments feature works through Bluelink, Hyundai’s branded connected car system that gives users control over various vehicle functions and services. Bluelink, which requires a subscription, is offered in three different packages that cover areas such as vehicle maintenance and alerts, remote climate control and unlocking and locking as well as destination search. Bluelink also can be linked to a user’s Google Assistant feature on their smartphone to send information to their Hyundai vehicle.

The in-car payments system will eventually expand to include other companies that fall into the charging, food and coffee on-the-go and parking categories. A company spokesperson said Hyundai will continue to add new merchants regularly via the Xevo Marketplace platform.

The Ioniq 5 is the company’s first dedicated battery-electric vehicle built on the new Electric-Global Modular Platform, or E-GMP platform. This platform is shared with Kia and is the underlying foundation of the new EV6.

If the Ioniq name sounds familiar, it’s because it already exists. In 2016, Hyundai introduced the Ioniq, a hatchback that came in hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric versions. The Korean automaker is using that vehicle as the jumping off point for its new EV brand.

All of the vehicles under the Ioniq brand will have the E-GMP platform. The Ioniq 5 is based on Hyundai’s Concept 45, a monocoque-style body crossover that the company unveiled in 2019 at the International Motor Show in Frankfurt. Designers of the Concept 45 leaned on some of the lines and characteristics from Hyundai’s first concept, the 1974 Pony Coupe. The “45” name comes, in part, from the 45-degree angles at the front and rear of the vehicle.

The trial, if successful, will mean a wider adoption by the auto industry, where the technology will likely going to be expanded to cover many other areas of payment.