0
0

[–] 24041315? ago 

Kinda like your mom. Well, 'cept without the clap part.

1
0

[–] 24041220? 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

They are a 'public utility' and will now be leashed and regulated accordingly. (after a wave of lawsuits and class-actions).

1
0

[–] 24041009? 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Naah, I'd much rather they be liable for lawsuit when they biasly censor people they disagree with.

Eat a dick

1
0

[–] 24040927? 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Actually they have a "monopoly" of sorts and raise antitrust questions. Also, the 230 question is are they "publishers? They act like publishers when they edit or post comments e.g. "fact checks" on OPs. So if they are publishers, then they are liable to lawsuits like any other publishers. Why should they get the special protections that section 230 of the law has provided them.

0
0

[–] 24041239? [S] ago  (edited ago)

Platforms are protected to censor anything they don't think is good:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)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, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

0
0

[–] 24043840? ago 

Exactly what the President is overturning. Thanks for posting the current law language.

1
0

[–] 24040831? 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Imagine being butthurt about a baker not wanting to bake a gay wedding cake but willing to sell the degenerates any goods from their store.

1
-1

[–] 24041153? [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I'm not butthurt about that. I'm hardcore capitalist.

1
0

[–] 24040734? 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Are they a platform or a publisher? There are different legal requirements for each. If they choose to be a publisher and censor, that's fine - and then they will have all the legal requirements that will come with it.

0
0

[–] 24040850? [S] ago 

Internet as we know would not exist if we would view anyone who restrict certain information as publishers. This is retarded

0
0

[–] 24040934? ago 

Sounds like you should brush up on the legal definitions, since you're using them all wrong.

If you enable communication, you're a platform. As a platform you have great legal protections from the government.

If you curate content, you're a publisher, and are far less protected.

Twitter wants the government to protect it against legal threats without having to follow any of its responsibilities. That's illegal.

It has to decide now whether it wants to curate and lose the protections it has enjoyed or follow the legal requirements that it has been ignoring until now.

0
1

[–] 24040909? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Nah they are going to bake my straight wedding cake and like it. Discrimination is not allowed goyim just like the fisa working both ways so does policies.

1
2

[–] 24041048? 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I think you will find the Supreme Court rules otherwise. You either a social media platform (open to free speech) or you are a publisher (can control content). If you are controlling content (a publisher) you are subject to a different set of rules.

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)