Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jan 9 2021 11:53am)

You have every right to pick up a phone and tell somebody whatever you want on that line without the phone company cutting off your communication or preventing you from continuing to communicate.

I don't care about facebook OR twitter, I don't utilize social media. However, I fully recognize what they are. They're a commons established for communication between friends, family, and random people. When they exercise editorial edict in that communication, they deserve to lose 230 protection.

It's a simple thing. Either you're a publisher or you're not. I'm sad that you don't understand that, or understand why JSP is classed differently. :)

Quote (BannyMcBannerson @ 9 Jan 2021 02:59)

Again, show me where access to a social media account is a right.

Quote (chemoshots @ 9 Jan 2021 03:53)

until or unless
a court of law says twitter etc
can't remove him
i don't think
there's much care
as to what insanebobb thinks is right
NO OFFENSE
friend

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jan 9 2021 06:57am)

Grammatically speaking, you're an idiot.

Moving on, the question is whether Social Media is a communications utility which should be immune to publisher standards. If the answer is yes, then they cannot be banned anymore than they could be banned for "wrongthink" by the electric or telephone company. If it's not a utility, and is a publisher, then there's no reason for their 230 protection.

It's a pretty cut and dry question.

Quote (chemoshots @ 9 Jan 2021 03:59)

does it not bother you
that your last week of post history
could all be replaced with
"i'm so great, you're so dumb, be like me"
and the substance
would not change whatsoever

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jan 9 2021 07:00am)

I presented a reasoned query, and you responded with personal attacks. Perhaps it's time to self-evaluate. :)

Quote (chemoshots @ 9 Jan 2021 04:02)

i hope that was intentional

Quote (InsaneBobb @ 9 Jan 2021 03:57)

Grammatically speaking, you're an idiot.

Moving on, the question is whether Social Media is a communications utility which should be immune to publisher standards. If the answer is yes, then they cannot be banned anymore than they could be banned for "wrongthink" by the electric or telephone company. If it's not a utility, and is a publisher, then there's no reason for their 230 protection.

It's a pretty cut and dry question.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jan 9 2021 07:04am)

I await the answer to the question:



Are fb/twitter utilities, or are they publishers?