I'm not sure I follow you...I'm saying their Rule 230 protections should be removed/repealed. The purpose of this is so that they can be sued if they censor posts. If you think they should be protected from lawsuits (assuming they will act like a platform) even though they're censoring posts (and acting as a publisher), I'm not sure I agree with you.
Section 230 protects more than just Big Tech. It protects a lot of smaller groups such as websites containing message boards like TDW from being sued for the content on the platform. We need to take a page out of the left's playbook and single out big tech to be excluded from 230 protections that's why I suggest revenue for size and international ownership for foreign influence.
So what if they changed Rule 230 so it would offer them protection, but only if they don't censor posts? Would you go along with that? That would protect the content provider, so long as they don't censor, so it would stop Twatter, Facetard, and Instalib from censoring posts. That was always the intent of Rule 230 from the beginning...that they were a platform, not a publisher, and therefore shouldn't be censoring their content. Then, it would be like a phone company - not censoring the conversation on the phone, but not liable for it's content either.
Dont get me wrong because something needs to be done but repealing it outright is the wrong move and so is a slap on the wrist. The three of them have abused it for too long that they should lose their protections but we need to reform it to maintain protections for places like Parlor that want to allow free speech. Twatters ownership should eliminate then from any special treatment at all.
I'm not sure I follow you...I'm saying their Rule 230 protections should be removed/repealed. The purpose of this is so that they can be sued if they censor posts. If you think they should be protected from lawsuits (assuming they will act like a platform) even though they're censoring posts (and acting as a publisher), I'm not sure I agree with you.
Section 230 protects more than just Big Tech. It protects a lot of smaller groups such as websites containing message boards like TDW from being sued for the content on the platform. We need to take a page out of the left's playbook and single out big tech to be excluded from 230 protections that's why I suggest revenue for size and international ownership for foreign influence.
So what if they changed Rule 230 so it would offer them protection, but only if they don't censor posts? Would you go along with that? That would protect the content provider, so long as they don't censor, so it would stop Twatter, Facetard, and Instalib from censoring posts. That was always the intent of Rule 230 from the beginning...that they were a platform, not a publisher, and therefore shouldn't be censoring their content. Then, it would be like a phone company - not censoring the conversation on the phone, but not liable for it's content either.
Dont get me wrong because something needs to be done but repealing it outright is the wrong move and so is a slap on the wrist. The three of them have abused it for too long that they should lose their protections but we need to reform it to maintain protections for places like Parlor that want to allow free speech. Twatters ownership should eliminate then from any special treatment at all.