[–] OricaTonithos 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

They should've thought of that when they were harming free speech.

[–] CrudOMatic 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Jews don't like being jewed.

[–] imadethisaccounttobl 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I weary of any arguments against S230. These companies just need to be treated the way they're acting, like publishers.

[–] oldblo ago 

Traitors still get the death penalty supposedly. Im all for treating them how they act.

[–] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

They will argue they are not free speech platforms in court and then argue that they are essential to free speech in public. It's a classic thing to do, not just corporations but for government as well.

[–] drhitler 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

s230 don't need to be removed, if people could start alternatives without their income being threatened that would be a much better option, as it stands twitter should of imploded but every alternative site that doesn't want to play by their rules gets shitlisted.

[–] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

One of the main things they're monopolizing right now is access to the banking system. You see this through PayPal and credit card processors. And even ways to convert your Bitcoin. So it all comes back to the banking system that's corrupt.

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

You have it backwards. Social media companies are not monopolizing banking. The banks are being the monopolies. Social media companies should not be held liable for the actions of banks. Or, registrars, or payment processors, or internet providers, and any other sector.

[–] Nukeisrael ago 

Dude, the free market is not going to take down these massive fucking megacorps. There is no lolbert solution.

[–] Ken_bingo2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

230 Is a red herring on both the CONgress and Techs part. They want to steer the conversation away from the obvious solution of common carrier laws.

[–] FreeinTX ago 

Even common carriers are allowed to decide a terms of service for their services.

Would you insist that companies wishing to advertise with social media (those that provide actual revenue to those companies) not be allowed to advertise unless they accept all forms of legal speech? Disney would be required to advertise knowing that their ads might show up on loli porn videos with everyone calling each other nigger in the comments section?

[–] Monkeyshinerbot3000 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Where have we seen this very behavior before??? "Rules for thee, not for me".

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

lets be honest, come a few years, someone will create their own browser tech which will be distributed. Torrents can already do it, so it wouldnt be hard to create an extension of this to messaging and communication

[–] captainstrange 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

jews working for tel aviv, in the fbi, and fusion centers, will use it to share terrorism material and child pornography. And that will be the pretext for shutting down (by first throttling and then fully blocking) the network, piece by piece.

[–] RevDrStrangelove 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

You guys really need to take 10 seconds and actually read the 1st Amendment. It's only one sentence long and very clear about its intent and scope.

[–] synthesizerToady 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The first amendment isn't free speech. Nor should it's protections be interpreted as the absolute limit of what ought to be protected. Either you believe free speech is valuable, and it should be protected from all malicious entities government or corporation. or you don't and the first amendment ought to be abolished.

[–] RevDrStrangelove 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah, you, specifically, REALLY need to read the 1st Amendment.

[–] Anam ago 

The first amendment recognizes and protects a preexisting intrinsic right. The right to speak freely is not something granted by the government.

[–] RevDrStrangelove ago 

There is no 'right' to speak freely. The 1A merely restricts the government's ability to impede your speech. That's it. That's all we have. All this "Facebook censored muh freedumbs" is nonsense that isn't going anywhere.

load more comments ▼ (14 remaining)