That argument the appeals court is using invalidates section 230 of the communications decency act.
Either they are a platform for all legal content that enjoys first amendment protection from litigation or they are a provider that edits content and does not enjoy first amendment protection.
That argument the appeals court is using invalidates section 230 of the communications decency act.
Either they are a platform for all legal content that enjoys first amendment protection from litigation or they are a provider that edits content and does not enjoy first amendment protection.
That’s what I was thinking. If they are going to use this argument it is going to invalidate some other things they want to keep.
That’s what I was thinking. If they are going to use this argument it is going to invalidate some other things they want to keep.
I hope they do take it farther. FB, IG, twitter, etc abuses the fuck out of it, editing or deleting content that should be protected under the first amendment, then goes back and complains that they are a platform and not editors.
It would also affect news outlets that have an online presence.
I hope they do take it farther. FB, IG, twitter, etc abuses the fuck out of it, editing or deleting content that should be protected under the first amendment, then goes back and complains that they are a platform and not editors.
It would also affect news outlets that have an online presence.
(post is archived)