They didn't always have an open bias. The site used to stay clear of any political topic, or they covered it broadly enough to just state the facts of the issue. Looks like it is impossible to hire real journalists in California.
Section 230 says that, for example, if an Ars reader leaves a comment that defames someone, Ars Technica can't be held liable for defamation. Similarly, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter can't be sued based on the contents of their users' videos, posts, and tweets, respectively. The law also shields sites from liability if they decide to take down content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."
Yet they openly ban conservatives, or anyone supportive of the President, and give no reason for the bans. They support one political party, and their moderators don't even pretend to be unbiased.
Same here. The constant and shrill climate change stuff is what finally broke me. I had an account from 1999 and just abandoned it.
They didn't always have an open bias. The site used to stay clear of any political topic, or they covered it broadly enough to just state the facts of the issue. Looks like it is impossible to hire real journalists in California.
Toxic because they literally enforce an echo chamber. Try to find a single comment that disagree's with the choir. Any dissent is banned.
Their feature story seems to indicate that they also enjoy section 230 protections on their forum:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/why-donald-trumps-war-on-big-tech-is-doomed-to-fail/
Yet they openly ban conservatives, or anyone supportive of the President, and give no reason for the bans. They support one political party, and their moderators don't even pretend to be unbiased.