T_D drove this idea to the mainstream 4 years ago, You should not be afforded the legal protections of a neutral platform, if you engage in non neutral conduct. You are a publisher and are liable for the content your users post.
When I open a physical newspaper, there are clearly marked sections. "News", "Entertainment", "Sports", 'Opinion". They need to be held to account for presenting opinions as news.
It’d just mean the original and obvious intention of section 230 being made a reality again. You can ban child porn, things that get too off topic, people openly doxxing and calling for violence, curse words if you really felt like it, things like that. It’d be like the old internet, or more like this site.
Twitter and Reddit are still welcome to politically control content even without section 230. It’s their 1st Amendment right. They can do or say whatever they want as Americans. They will just be liable for it as a publisher now because they’ve all long since been abusing their section 230 protections, which will hereafter no longer apply to them if they continue to act in this way. They are advised not to do that though because it will be financially untenable for them, miring them in endless litigation and all else.
Probably not, and if anyone tried I’m sure there’d be money showing up to help. The Donald’s stated premise and rules are pretty clear. This site as stated is entirely about supporting current and future president Donald J Trump.
Twitter can continue doing their leftist thing with legal protection if they publicly changed the site to make it clear that it is only for left wing groups, ideas, and talking points, as well as other things. Same with Reddit. If they make explicit that the topic of their site, above all else, is supporting the left at all costs, then they’re allowed to continue on with 230 protection. I would never want a site, including this one, to be forced to allow content against it’s stated purpose. The site just needs to be upfront about it. Nobody comes here assuming or expecting critiques of Trump, or support for leftist ideas and candidates. This site is honest. Reddit and Twitter are not.
It’ll stop if they want to continue receiving the protections that Section 230 provides. Most of their rules aren’t very subjective, and are very clearly being selectively applied. That is not operating in good faith according to the provision. On top of that, Trump is using precedent to push for a further clarification of that to that end.
Legal stuff aside, their stocks are going to continue tanking if they don’t become honest platforms again because Trump’s following through with what he said he’d do, just like he always does. The damage to them is already being done and will continue to mount.
Them picking mail in voting to push the furthest on was a horrible idea, particularly since they tried ‘fact checking’ it with opinion pieces. They also selectively published that list and put it together, acting in this case as a literal publisher.
Just like with any law, it is subject to being prosecuted, So i doubt removing spam would warrant legal action, or a jury that would convict on that...
And even then, it doesn't make it illegal to remove the content, it just means that if you engage in a policy of curating and censoring, then you lose the legal immunity of liability for things your users post.
It means you can search through the archives of twitter, reddit, facebook, youtube, etc, etc, etc and sue the every loving pants of the commie fucks for whatever you find.
They can't police it all or edit all of it. There's too much to realistically be able to do. It's honestly cheaper to act as a neutral platform and fire all the lunatics you've hired.
T_D drove this idea to the mainstream 4 years ago, You should not be afforded the legal protections of a neutral platform, if you engage in non neutral conduct. You are a publisher and are liable for the content your users post.
Don't let your memes be dreams
Many mainstream news outlets need to be put on notice too.
they're already publishers though
When I open a physical newspaper, there are clearly marked sections. "News", "Entertainment", "Sports", 'Opinion". They need to be held to account for presenting opinions as news.
This
If anything they should be pissed that places like Reddit get to act like news outlets, meanwhile being afforded a shield.
Motte & Bailey.
It’d just mean the original and obvious intention of section 230 being made a reality again. You can ban child porn, things that get too off topic, people openly doxxing and calling for violence, curse words if you really felt like it, things like that. It’d be like the old internet, or more like this site.
Twitter and Reddit are still welcome to politically control content even without section 230. It’s their 1st Amendment right. They can do or say whatever they want as Americans. They will just be liable for it as a publisher now because they’ve all long since been abusing their section 230 protections, which will hereafter no longer apply to them if they continue to act in this way. They are advised not to do that though because it will be financially untenable for them, miring them in endless litigation and all else.
Probably not, and if anyone tried I’m sure there’d be money showing up to help. The Donald’s stated premise and rules are pretty clear. This site as stated is entirely about supporting current and future president Donald J Trump.
Twitter can continue doing their leftist thing with legal protection if they publicly changed the site to make it clear that it is only for left wing groups, ideas, and talking points, as well as other things. Same with Reddit. If they make explicit that the topic of their site, above all else, is supporting the left at all costs, then they’re allowed to continue on with 230 protection. I would never want a site, including this one, to be forced to allow content against it’s stated purpose. The site just needs to be upfront about it. Nobody comes here assuming or expecting critiques of Trump, or support for leftist ideas and candidates. This site is honest. Reddit and Twitter are not.
But they use subjective rules to categorize and censor. How will that stop?
It’ll stop if they want to continue receiving the protections that Section 230 provides. Most of their rules aren’t very subjective, and are very clearly being selectively applied. That is not operating in good faith according to the provision. On top of that, Trump is using precedent to push for a further clarification of that to that end.
Legal stuff aside, their stocks are going to continue tanking if they don’t become honest platforms again because Trump’s following through with what he said he’d do, just like he always does. The damage to them is already being done and will continue to mount.
Them picking mail in voting to push the furthest on was a horrible idea, particularly since they tried ‘fact checking’ it with opinion pieces. They also selectively published that list and put it together, acting in this case as a literal publisher.
Just like with any law, it is subject to being prosecuted, So i doubt removing spam would warrant legal action, or a jury that would convict on that...
And even then, it doesn't make it illegal to remove the content, it just means that if you engage in a policy of curating and censoring, then you lose the legal immunity of liability for things your users post.
It means you can search through the archives of twitter, reddit, facebook, youtube, etc, etc, etc and sue the every loving pants of the commie fucks for whatever you find.
They can't police it all or edit all of it. There's too much to realistically be able to do. It's honestly cheaper to act as a neutral platform and fire all the lunatics you've hired.
This is GLORIOUS!