You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
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.
[+]drhitler0 points3 points3 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]drhitler0 points
3 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.
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.
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.
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?
It would harm their free speech for sure. They see their censoring of conservative views as them expressing their freedom of expression. They don't understand that freedom of speech is a two way street. They only see one way. Theirs.
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
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.
Sort: Top
[–] OricaTonithos 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
They should've thought of that when they were harming free speech.
[–] CrudOMatic 0 points 13 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago
Jews don't like being jewed.
[–] imadethisaccounttobl 0 points 8 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 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 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 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 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 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?
[–] AlternateSelection 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
It would harm their free speech for sure. They see their censoring of conservative views as them expressing their freedom of expression. They don't understand that freedom of speech is a two way street. They only see one way. Theirs.
[–] Monkeyshinerbot3000 0 points 2 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 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 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.