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.
Yeah that's why big tech used some of their ad money to buy politicians
Same crony system used by the MIC where they charge the govt outrageous amounts for contracts and recycle a small taste of their profits as campaign contributions to keep that gravy flowing. This is why they don't have to represent us any more.
(post is archived)