5238
Comments (101)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
121
KRAKENEKS 121 points ago +123 / -2

I see definite prison time for these 3 in the future

93
Guruchild 93 points ago +94 / -1

Why the fuck are they deciding Jack shit. They are publishers, not platforms, right?

32
abstr4ct 32 points ago +32 / -0

my man..

26
Guruchild 26 points ago +26 / -0

Glad someone sees what I did there lol

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
7
Dudewho 7 points ago +8 / -1

Shouldn't even matter at this point. If someone wanted to sue them, a judge should approve of it. They have acted numerous times as publishers, so face the consequences.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Dudewho 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm talking for anyone and everyone who wants to sue. Even in prior years when they were acting as a publisher. A good judge would see the platform status and ignore it just as they ignored their role. This 48 state suit may or may not result in much, but also kinda seperate to the point.

3
EndHumanTrafficking2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Doesn't section 230 actually only give them protection to remove illegal content, and that's it? It doesn't allow them to censor truth or even opinions, right?

I thought the problem wasn't section 230, it was that section 230 doesn't get applied correctly. So if someone sued twitter/facebook/google, and they hid behind section 230, they should lose if the law was applied correctly?

Can anyone clarify this for me.

0
ThePowerOfPrayer 0 points ago +1 / -1

Remember, Facebook and Twitter are trying to get around Section 230 by hiring "independent fact-checkers." It's those services, and not Facebook and Twitter, in theory, that will get the blame if anything goes down.

It's all about creating plausible deniability.

1
EndHumanTrafficking2 1 point ago +1 / -0

But again, section 230 provides facebook no legal protection against 'fact-based' censorship. Section 230 only allows tech companies to remove illegal content.

Political content is not illegal, therefore section 230 provides twitter/facebook no protection.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
44
DarkestB4ThaDon 44 points ago +44 / -0

Hang em

17
ClockworkGremlin 17 points ago +18 / -1

Short drop for traitors!

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
29
deleted 29 points ago +29 / -0
8
ironhorse 8 points ago +8 / -0

they're gonna need more security personnel

4
marishiten 4 points ago +4 / -0

To be realistic, these dudes aren't going to see the inside of a cell. They have the money and connections to stay out of prison and in their bay area mansions or flee the US and seek asylum in another country where they'll buy a mansion and not worry about shit.

It's a fucking travesty and miscarriage of justice, but they're too connected, too well known, and too rich to be touched. The government is afraid of these guys. They are. They're scared of them. They're scared that big tech will target them. They're scared that big tech will stop giving them donations. They're scared that they'll pack up and stop paying taxes.

Big Tech has the entire government by the short hairs and big tech knows it. That's why they act with impunity. That's why Jack literally doesn't care when he has to talk to the Senate. Watch his face and his demeanor when he answers. He's dismissive and apathetic. He knows it's all a fucking show. At least Zuckerberg tries to act concerned. And maybe he is. He seems like one of those guys who are super scared of authority when being grilled. But in the end, they all know that they'll get slapped on the writs with a fine and scolded.

it sucks and it's really disheartening. Our own society and laws prevent us from doing what should be done to them. And we can't just ignore them for some and not others (even though that's what we're doing now, but you get it).

17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
4
hansgruber7 4 points ago +4 / -0

I wish that were true.