Good and then the social media giants can sue and we’ll get this thing settled in court…as it should be.
Good, that a law forces private companies to host private users, even if that use is objectionable to the company’s owners?
When they advertise as a neutral speech platform.
Stop making ■■■■ up, eh?
Are they discriminating?
Is ‘Hobby Lobby’ a ‘neutral shopping provider’?
Think, man. This is no good for your entire movement.
No clue what that means.
What I think doesn’t matter, if it did, we wouldn’t have a lot of the problems our country has but in this instance, it needs to go to court.
Well, stop inventing patently silly terms to avoid the logical consequences of your own arguments.
You wrote ‘good’ to a State forcing private companies to violate their own ethea.
2 Likes
The law has a special carve out for Disney. It exemptsvtheme park operators.
Welcome to Twitter land and 6 flags over facebook 
2 Likes
So it ends up just being a shakedown.
When it is applied unequally, then it becomes discriminatory? Section 230 written in 1996 never contemplated the magnitude of these social platforms and their impact when approving of some and denying the participation of others. If you don’t think so, that’s why it needs to be settled in a courtroom. Then it needs to be revisited from a legislation standpoint and regulations that put in place that initiate equality for all.
What is unequal? How do you prove it? Please clarify.
The social giants apply an unequal form of judgement deciding what speech is ok and what is not. That’s one aspect. Another is the banning and permanent banning of individuals. These platforms are much too powerful and influential on our society to go unchecked in this manner IMO.
Here is one example of what I’m speaking of and it’s going to court.
This isn’t proof of anything. It’s an anecdote
1 Like
Then those ips will be blocked too
Who cares, not me.
.
.
Serious question…
Let’s take Twitter for example since they are the ones that banned Trump** which is what pissed of Trump** supporters.
Twitter is based on California. How does Florida enforce such a law on a company not based in Florida and likely has no physical presence in Florida?
WW
2 Likes
