Title says it all but, I just think that saying "hey get rid of 230" is good enough. So should I talk about YouTube's new guidelines or Twitter banning opposing opinions and blocking the president's Twitters? I don't want to sound like a idiot and I'm takin seriously. Also I'm a citizen of MO.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
There's nothing stopping a private company from violating your basic rights. The general argument is that if you don't like it, you don't do business with them and that's A-okay...somehow.
Like if you try to go into Wal-Mart without a mask and cite "There's no law", you'd be right. But it's their corporate policy now - they can tresspass you for violating it and they'd be in the right and it would be enforced and no court would listen to your pleas of otherwise.
It isn't "right", but it's what they're doing.
Vaccines will also not be mandated by government; they'll use corporate fiat. Places like airlines will have a "no vaccine, no fly" rule very soon.
Ok, so you're not familiar with Section 230.
That's different from the Constitution...
Section 230 holds that companies cannot be liable for stuff idiots using their site decide to post, so long as said company isn't acting as a publisher.
The argument that companies like Twitter/Facebook/Youtube/etc. are acting as publishers is true, but Section 230 also protects places like TD from trolls who would post CP here to get it shut down. So getting rid of 230 isn't a grand idea - reforming it to enforce that social media companies ARE publishers (or must stop acting as them in order to retain 230 protections) and should be treated as such is a good idea.
That said, it's sort of already on the books - it's like monopoly laws - the companies have to be sued and shown they were wrong before shit gets done.
Bill Gates lost his monopoly/anti-trust suits over far less...No reason Dorsey and Zuck can't get reamed.
Again, what Constitution have you read? What they are doing is SEDITION & TREASON. Still not legal.
You can argue that, yes. I would agree that you are correct.
The problem is that courts would have to also agree.
It's the unfortunate downside of being a nation of laws - we can't just hang people who we think (or even KNOW) are traitors - they have to be dealt with legally.