So many reasons why this wouldn't get heard in the SCOTUS, but even if a case was referred there, what makes you think they would do anything? They punted on the Texas case.
It's shitty, I know. But the truth is that they can't. I know you might think of it as a left wing talking point, but Parler relied on AWS hosts, which Amazon obviously owns. If, say, an organization was transferring child pornography on a website that was on AWS, then Amazon would (and should) take it down. Likewise, if there was an organization that was transferring messages that call for violence, then Amazon would also take it down. Selling illegal drugs on a website hosted on AWS? Amazon takes it down, etc.
Twitter and Facebook skirt past this because they are protected by section 230 and they host their "platforms" on their own servers.
However, there may be some chance of contacting Twitter and Facebook's domain registrar and telling them that these services also contain death threats and organizations that call for violence. If there is something in their terms of service they might be violating, then there might be grounds for action to be taken on the registrars. And if they don't want to be sued, then they might put pressure on Twitter and Facebook like how Amazon, Google, and Apple did with Parler. But I am no lawyer, just spitballing here.
It's shitty, I know. But the truth is that they can't. I know you might think of it as a left wing talking point, but Parler relied on AWS hosts, which Amazon obviously owns. If, say, an organization was transferring child pornography on a website that was on AWS, then Amazon would (and should) take it down. Likewise, if there was an organization that was transferring messages that call for violence, then Amazon would also take it down. Selling illegal drugs on a website hosted on AWS? Amazon takes it down, etc.
Twitter and Facebook skirt past this because they are protected by section 230 and they host their "platforms" on their own servers.
However, there may be some chance of contacting Twitter and Facebook's domain registrar and telling them that these services also contain death threats and organizations that call for violence. If there is something in their terms of service they might be violating, then there might be grounds for action to be taken on the registrars. And if they don't want to be sued, then they might put pressure on Twitter and Facebook like how Amazon, Google, and Apple did with Parler. But I am no lawyer, just spitballing here.
because John Roberts is still on vacation on Pedo Island with Billy and Killary
They're corrupt or cowardly - I'm not sure which is worse.
So many reasons why this wouldn't get heard in the SCOTUS, but even if a case was referred there, what makes you think they would do anything? They punted on the Texas case.
SCOTUS is corrupt, too.
Do you really have to ask?
The Supreme Court only reacts to cases brought before them. They do not make rulings on current events in real time.
There woke they cannot be disturbed now.
It's shitty, I know. But the truth is that they can't. I know you might think of it as a left wing talking point, but Parler relied on AWS hosts, which Amazon obviously owns. If, say, an organization was transferring child pornography on a website that was on AWS, then Amazon would (and should) take it down. Likewise, if there was an organization that was transferring messages that call for violence, then Amazon would also take it down. Selling illegal drugs on a website hosted on AWS? Amazon takes it down, etc.
Twitter and Facebook skirt past this because they are protected by section 230 and they host their "platforms" on their own servers.
However, there may be some chance of contacting Twitter and Facebook's domain registrar and telling them that these services also contain death threats and organizations that call for violence. If there is something in their terms of service they might be violating, then there might be grounds for action to be taken on the registrars. And if they don't want to be sued, then they might put pressure on Twitter and Facebook like how Amazon, Google, and Apple did with Parler. But I am no lawyer, just spitballing here.
It's shitty, I know. But the truth is that they can't. I know you might think of it as a left wing talking point, but Parler relied on AWS hosts, which Amazon obviously owns. If, say, an organization was transferring child pornography on a website that was on AWS, then Amazon would (and should) take it down. Likewise, if there was an organization that was transferring messages that call for violence, then Amazon would also take it down. Selling illegal drugs on a website hosted on AWS? Amazon takes it down, etc.
Twitter and Facebook skirt past this because they are protected by section 230 and they host their "platforms" on their own servers.
However, there may be some chance of contacting Twitter and Facebook's domain registrar and telling them that these services also contain death threats and organizations that call for violence. If there is something in their terms of service they might be violating, then there might be grounds for action to be taken on the registrars. And if they don't want to be sued, then they might put pressure on Twitter and Facebook like how Amazon, Google, and Apple did with Parler. But I am no lawyer, just spitballing here.
So we can't do anything? They can just ban us off the internet and get away with it?
But the supreme court ruled that the cake shop had to make the cake for the gay couple regardless....
Don't you think it is a bit ridiculous to ask us to create new servers, payment processors, etc?