Right wing in US basically just cucked and let the rodents walk all over us, not now/immediately but for the last 20 years. Frogs being slow cooked to death. Thats the fucking truth here. We are the "silent majority" - too silent to do shit about anything. Now we will watch the country slip into liberal hands and be first hand witness to mass immigration, kids growing up with filthy liberal ideologies, 8 year olds having the option to get transgender surgeries etc.
But how does that permit slapping disclaimers on one's opinions, especially if there is nothing that goes against law or calls for something illegal?
What I understood, from a fast search, is that 230 prevents service providers being sued for content they distribute, but how is hiding/altering/obfuscating that content ok?
Since I'm not from US my understanding was that the 1st Amendment was to protect from this.
Section 230 doesnt protect them from the consequences of censoring the president. Even more alarming, the courts ruled some time ago that Trump could not legally block people from his account, as that would prevent them receiving presidential communications they were entitled to read. Of course, they had been blocked only from commenting their hateful replies; they were still able to read Trump's tweets. Anyway this court case was forgotten the moment that twitter wanted to censor presidential tweets. Because fuck you. So it turns out that the law is largely irrelevant; Twitter will get away with violating the law unless and until they suffer consequences.
Right wing in US basically just cucked and let the rodents walk all over us, not now/immediately but for the last 20 years. Frogs being slow cooked to death. Thats the fucking truth here. We are the "silent majority" - too silent to do shit about anything. Now we will watch the country slip into liberal hands and be first hand witness to mass immigration, kids growing up with filthy liberal ideologies, 8 year olds having the option to get transgender surgeries etc.
section 230
But how does that permit slapping disclaimers on one's opinions, especially if there is nothing that goes against law or calls for something illegal?
What I understood, from a fast search, is that 230 prevents service providers being sued for content they distribute, but how is hiding/altering/obfuscating that content ok?
Since I'm not from US my understanding was that the 1st Amendment was to protect from this.
Section 230 doesnt protect them from the consequences of censoring the president. Even more alarming, the courts ruled some time ago that Trump could not legally block people from his account, as that would prevent them receiving presidential communications they were entitled to read. Of course, they had been blocked only from commenting their hateful replies; they were still able to read Trump's tweets. Anyway this court case was forgotten the moment that twitter wanted to censor presidential tweets. Because fuck you. So it turns out that the law is largely irrelevant; Twitter will get away with violating the law unless and until they suffer consequences.
Fingers crossed, hoping your President will keep the fight on and clean up this nonsense.
It's not, they are crossing the line knowing that all the republican's will do is drag them to court and give them a stern talking to.