[–] 24040927? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+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.
[–] 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]
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.
The reason the govt has the ability to regulate is several fold. Access to the internet and its infastructure, at least to some degree requires govt approval, either through airwaves, cables (easements, right of ways, etc.) on public lands for transmission. In this way, it can be argued as an extension of the public square. In order to have protection from liability, you can't censor.
The argument will also be made that the internet is a public utility, like the phone, power, water, etc. In this way, the phone company can't censor your phone calls even though you are using part of their private property.
[–] 24041315? ago
Kinda like your mom. Well, 'cept without the clap part.