Imagine a bar that has a house rule “No Shouting!”. That’s only fair, that the business owner can make his own rules for the patrons to abide by right?
Now imagine the owner never enforcing this rule for all white patrons: They freely, proudly shout over each other loudly. But as soon a black person raises his voice ever so slightly they get thrown out because (not said but implied) the owner doesn’t like black people. Are you okay with that?!
Similarly Twitter should not be allowed to ARBITRARILY apply its own rules mostly towards conservatives because (not said, but implied) it doesn’t like their views.
I’m in favor of 230, but only if those that enjoy that protection respect their status as a forum where all legal speech is equally free to be voiced.
Similar to how your electricity company cannot shut down your electricity because it doesn’t like that you’re using the electricity to print out Antifa pamphlets.
Common sense is not so common these days. And ideologues like staunch globalists libertarians are sticking their head in the sand instead of fighting for true freedom and equality.
Feel free to copy paste as a reply to any libertarian Cuck, that needs this spelled out to them.
I'm mixed on 230. On the one hand, the rise of alternative media is proof that the market is working, though I admint it doesn't seem fast enough. On the other hand, it seems like Google and Facebook are acting beyond private companies, and almost acting like agents of the state. IMHO, when acting that way, you don't get to decide free speech rules.
I remember that both of these companies were pretty libertarian about free speech, till their big meeting with Obama. What did he promise them, what did he say to them? I would really like to know.