Yet another publishing decision from a publishing powerhouse so influential that they have bought democratic politicians and will never lose their section 230 protections unless scotus takes it away.
For a good explanation fo 230, check this out: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/section-230-the-internet-law-politicians-love-to-hate-explained/
I know exactly what section 230 is. My entire point is that companies should either be completely forbidden from censoring, or they should be completely liable for the things that people say on their platform. There should be no legal middle ground where companies can get away with some censorship. To suggest that people opposing section 230 want politically neutral censorship is a strawman. There should be no room for censorship whatsoever.
That position won't attract maximum advert moolah and is inconsistent with Kapitalism, and my cite wasn't for you, but for others interested in getting acquainted with the parameters of the debate.
(post is archived)