WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

319

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

, defender of the corporate big tech establishment!

[–] 0 pt

You could predict that the "corporate big tech establishment" would be an especially hard target, one that would not be worried by De Santis' legally flawed pander. To assume that I favor big tech because I think De Santis is a moron, is misguided.

[–] 0 pt

Regardless, I'm sure they appreciate that they have you out there fighting for them

[–] 0 pt

So are gun law, but no one gives a fuck.

[–] 0 pt

Quite the echo chamber of stupid they've got going there. No rational discussion and if someone breaks away from the group think then out come the insults.

[–] 0 pt

It's their side that decided that political campaign speech isn't free speech. I tend to think that it is. But if you can go to jail for giving money to a political candidate, then you can go to jail for banning one from your platform. Some law kike explain to me how it's different when they do it.

[–] 0 pt

Except all of these companies have claimed liability protections under article 230, which makes them a public forum.

A private company has the right to do or not do anything, which would make desantis' stand untenable, but these companies have voluntarily waived those rights by claiming to be protected through article 230. This legally and constitutionally puts them in the purview of public forum, public access, and freedom of speech protection for the people using them, not the companies anymore. This article doesn't understand law or legality and apparently neither do you.

[–] 0 pt

Fellate a shotgun, subhuman. It’s illegal for tech companies to censor anyone.

[–] 0 pt

says the best legal mind in the universe.

[–] 0 pt

strawman

Congrats, admitted paid jewish shill. We have two and a half centuries of precedent that prove you wrong.

[–] 0 pt

Which precedent?

[–] 0 pt

I think Big Tech ironically belongs in Baghdad with its backwards attitudes.