They slept on the false claims, as they should, you’re right.

Every private entity has always been allowed to disregard the first amendment. It has always been for the government.

Social media platforms are NOT considered private entities. You know this. Have some coffee.

You are exactly wrong lol. Courts have always explicitly upheld that social media is a private entity. Most recently PragerU vs Youtube was thrown out on the exact basis.

That's funny:

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/FB:NASDAQ?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimtc-m2ofuAhUBP60KHd5MDVoQ_AUoAXoECAQQAw
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/TWTR:NYSE?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCxeOt2YfuAhXImq0KHXjICNQQ_AUoAXoECAQQAw

Actually, they upheld that social media was NOT considered a publisher.
Have some coffee bro... seriously.





This post was edited by Ghot on Jan 6 2021 10:23am

Oh, I get it... shifting the goal posts.

Good pic, wrong person. I let myself be sucked in to Thor's shifting of the goal posts, earlier.
I'm following an Instacart order, so I'm not paying attention like I should.

Censorship is BAD. Section 230 allows censorship with no liability.


I mean, what's next... burning books that may have a word or phrase that some "group" has a problem with?

This post was edited by Ghot on Jan 6 2021 10:32am

You can be a private entity And be not a publisher.

Being a publisher is irrelevant to whether the first amendment applies to hosting content

Your earlier point that lots of private entities do it already...is not correct.

You can refuse service for various reasons, but you can CENSOR folks that aren't breaking the law.
You may want to live in that lkind of world... but I don't.

By the same token...I don't want to run around offending people. But if I accidentally do so... I don't expect to be arrested or sued...or w/e.


If you can't see the danger in the c2A part of Section 230...well then I can't make it any clearer.