If they claim to solely be a private platform and do not utilize public forums benefits then sure. As soon as they claim article 230 they become a public platform and are subject to the first ammendment.
Depends the law of the countries their services are accessible from.
Depends If they are obligated to not let some content available to the public or if they are doing it themselves based on their own EULA/ToS
If they claim to be a Common Carrier, then they should be shielded from liability from lawsuits based on content posted by users under reasonable circumstances, but if they edit the content on their sites then they become Editors and that content becomes Editorial in nature, and they should be liable for lawsuits brought because they printed libelous material or because they breached a contract with an Advertiser or Partner or Associate.
This is all covered in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Large ones shouldn't because they're basically the new public square, but small ones may be digital fiefdoms if they wish. Of course, this raises the issue of the nature of a site changing as it gets larger, but I doubt very a site being less ideologically rigid and manipulative as it gets popular is a terrible thing.
Also, you have a great icon!
At the very least they shouldn't be able to misrepresent their terms, e.g. silencing conservatives but claiming no such thing. People invest time in using them and it's a kind of fraud to nullify that investment with different rules than advertised.
Sure
No. Free speech for all or suffer the penalties.
The peeps be hath spoken and sheeeeeeit.
I think that's fine as long as they don't use the part of the internet that my tax dollars paid for.
Well if it's in their EULA and you clicked: accept. Then yes. If anywhere on their site claims free speech then screenshot, and consult a lawyer.
like anybody reads that shit
(post is archived)