Such endorsements and censorship should be counted as in-kind contributions to a campaign
Yes, the distinction between PLATFORM (enjoying 230 liability protections) and PUBLISHER.
They should be held legally liable for the child porn, the illegal drug trafficking, the human trafficking, the facilitating communication by enemies of the United States.
This is true, but should be inarguable. But, the 230 protection also render no Standing to even potential litigation where a claim could be made that harm was made and facilitated through the network (e.g., harm/loss/death that came from bullying). They are currently protected from any and all allegations (mostly civil) that could also be brought to bear would drain these companies of their resources. Yes, their pile of treasure might bear that out now, but (again) these companies would have never "made it" without these protections being afforded to them from early stage until now. Protections that were afforded them by the US (the People); not their own TOS or some other national policy.
Yes, the distinction between PLATFORM (enjoying 230 liability protections) and PUBLISHER.
This is true, but should be inarguable. But, the 230 protection also render no Standing to even potential litigation where a claim could be made that harm was made and facilitated through the network (e.g., harm/loss/death that came from bullying). They are currently protected from any and all allegations (mostly civil) that could also be brought to bear would drain these companies of their resources. Yes, their pile of treasure might bear that out now, but (again) these companies would have never "made it" without these protections being afforded to them from early stage until now. Protections that were afforded them by the US (the People); not their own TOS or some other national policy.