And if a conservative company complains they don’t want their ads associated with oh say pro-choice content, should such content be removed from the platform? Or should that only be done when you don’t like the content either?
If that’s what the owner of the platform decides, I have no problem.
The point is I don’t make those decisions for them.
If conservatives get their way, the ones advocating for restricting the rights of platform owners, they will destroy these platforms and half the internet.
I think they should have to have a legitimate business reason for censoring speech on their platform, one that is applied fairly, consistently and without political bias. Otherwise they are in the publishing or content business and should have their immunity from liability for user posted content removed.
No, the left are the ones out to destroy the internet, see the proposed article 13 in the liberal EU.
Who gets to decide what a “legitimate business reason” is?
The courts.
You guys are the one calling for an internet fairness doctrine.
It’s not the fairness doctrine we are calling for, it is free speech.
No, you’re calling for a fairness doctrine. It’s not “free speech” when you’re using the the threat of prosecution to force websites to host content that they don’t want to host.
Who said anything about prosecution?
Who is going to judge what is a “legitimate” business reason? You?
This is how you destroy the internet.
What did you mean when you stated that they should have their immunity from liability removed?
The hilarious thing to me is how some want content on the internet to be regulated but think that regulating the telcos delivering that content is wrong.
It is very strange.
Deflection noted. We aren’t talking about the EU.
Do you know the difference between prosecution and civil liability?
Why yes, I do.
Which Section 230 immunities do you believe should be stripped from Twitter for not following your rules?
Barring political discrimination against speech is regulating content? You seem to have that backwards.
230 doesn’t just provide protection from civil liability. There is criminal liability as well.
The part that says they are immune from civil liability for user published content. If they are going to insist on editorial control they are no different than other publishers that do not possess such immunity. The courts should bar them from censoring speech without a compelling business reason for doing so.
Of course it’s regulating content.
