I didn't read everything, excuse me please. But we don't have to break up a monopoly. We have to rule them as publishers not platforms. Let the lawsuits roll in and take care of the rest.
I don't know who told you that they are technically publishers and not platforms but that person was lying. there's not a single reputable legal scholar who agrees with that idea. I don't know where you got that idea
I mean for the first part. making them a publisher instead of a platform wouldn't change a damn thing. what do you think that's going to do? That if you made them a publisher they suddenly would stop censoring people? Why? what motivates them to stop censorship as a publisher rather than a platform? nothing. It wouldn't solve the problem at all. at most you would just put them out of business because they would be under a mountain of lawsuits and unable to actually operate as a social media Network since they could be liable for everything posted.
so the people generally pushing that bullshit are people who don't want to stop censorship as much as they just want to put all these companies out of business because they're angry that those companies sell their data we're not talking about these companies selling data. That's not the issue at hand. so we should ignore these people's bullshit
secondly there is no justification for making them a publisher anyway. are you saying that because they enforce terms of service they are now CNN? That's ridiculous. And there's no legal statute to back that claim up. there's not a single person telling the truth in the world claiming that there is some law that if they enforce terms of service they are now suddenly a newspaper LOL
I heard the claim. I don't know who told it but they were lying. there's nothing in section 230 that requires that a social media Network allow all speech no matter what. not one thing. In fact if you actually read section 230 it says the exact opposite. there's literally text in section 230 that says it applies to social media networks specifically that moderate content. based on the text to section 230 in fact it only applies to social media that sensors people. It specifically protects them
so again I'm not sure who told you that section 230 forbids censorship but it doesn't..
obviously that doesn't mean there's nothing you can do. there is plenty you can do. such as creating new laws instead of trying to reinterpret old laws. As much as conservatives cry about legislating from the bench they sure are a big fan of trying to apply old laws a brand new situations to get what they wa
so no. The solution is not to make them a publisher the solution is not section 230 or whatever else the corporate fascists are pushing. there is one solution. As a regulation against censorship. there's no need to go into all this legal mumbo-jumbo and reinterpret old laws to get what you want. That's just Boomer crap because they're scared of new stuff and that includes you do laws. boomers are scared of new laws and do anything and so they would rather reinterpret an old law tha make a new one
but boomers destroyed the world. let's not listen to them. The solution is having the FCC declare Facebook as a public utility. They did it with the telecoms they can do it with Facebook. And then using Obama's net neutrality precedent 2 prevent censorship of any kind on social media..
it's doable. It can be done. there's nobody reasonable who will argue that it's not possible. there's only people who argue against doing it because I don't like the idea. Because they don't want to solve censorship as much as they want to destroy Faceboo..
I didn't read everything, excuse me please. But we don't have to break up a monopoly. We have to rule them as publishers not platforms. Let the lawsuits roll in and take care of the rest.
I don't know who told you that they are technically publishers and not platforms but that person was lying. there's not a single reputable legal scholar who agrees with that idea. I don't know where you got that idea
I mean for the first part. making them a publisher instead of a platform wouldn't change a damn thing. what do you think that's going to do? That if you made them a publisher they suddenly would stop censoring people? Why? what motivates them to stop censorship as a publisher rather than a platform? nothing. It wouldn't solve the problem at all. at most you would just put them out of business because they would be under a mountain of lawsuits and unable to actually operate as a social media Network since they could be liable for everything posted.
so the people generally pushing that bullshit are people who don't want to stop censorship as much as they just want to put all these companies out of business because they're angry that those companies sell their data we're not talking about these companies selling data. That's not the issue at hand. so we should ignore these people's bullshit
secondly there is no justification for making them a publisher anyway. are you saying that because they enforce terms of service they are now CNN? That's ridiculous. And there's no legal statute to back that claim up. there's not a single person telling the truth in the world claiming that there is some law that if they enforce terms of service they are now suddenly a newspaper LOL
I heard the claim. I don't know who told it but they were lying. there's nothing in section 230 that requires that a social media Network allow all speech no matter what. not one thing. In fact if you actually read section 230 it says the exact opposite. there's literally text in section 230 that says it applies to social media networks specifically that moderate content. based on the text to section 230 in fact it only applies to social media that sensors people. It specifically protects them
so again I'm not sure who told you that section 230 forbids censorship but it doesn't..
obviously that doesn't mean there's nothing you can do. there is plenty you can do. such as creating new laws instead of trying to reinterpret old laws. As much as conservatives cry about legislating from the bench they sure are a big fan of trying to apply old laws a brand new situations to get what they wa
so no. The solution is not to make them a publisher the solution is not section 230 or whatever else the corporate fascists are pushing. there is one solution. As a regulation against censorship. there's no need to go into all this legal mumbo-jumbo and reinterpret old laws to get what you want. That's just Boomer crap because they're scared of new stuff and that includes you do laws. boomers are scared of new laws and do anything and so they would rather reinterpret an old law tha make a new one
but boomers destroyed the world. let's not listen to them. The solution is having the FCC declare Facebook as a public utility. They did it with the telecoms they can do it with Facebook. And then using Obama's net neutrality precedent 2 prevent censorship of any kind on social media..
it's doable. It can be done. there's nobody reasonable who will argue that it's not possible. there's only people who argue against doing it because I don't like the idea. Because they don't want to solve censorship as much as they want to destroy Faceboo..