![Revenge [720x693 - 38KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/PpfM3s.jpg){kind=link}
Which is what makes them a publisher. They are picking and choosing specific content that they want published on their site. No different than any news agency. Except the news agency is liable for the content that then publish and allow to be published.
Not true. They aren't publishing anything other than the stuff they, themselves, put on their platform, for which they can and have been held liable. Words have meaning.
Stop trying to destroy the internet with this platfprm v publisher nonsense.
That's not even how section 230 is worded. Good faith efforts to moderate content for illegal stuff is different than picking choosing which political ideologies are allowed. That, by definition of that law, makes them a publisher. There's no ruining the internet by taking away special government protections from multi-billion dollar content providers. They can fend for themselves. Small platforms don't have to worry, because they are platforms. Poal doesn't ban left wing speech. Individual users might, but that is irrelevant to topic and the law. And basic common sense. Stanning for leftist billionaires to make sure they can't be sued for allowing libelous and slanderous content to be published is a pointless effort.
There is nothing in Section 230 that restricts a platform from censoring anything that they want for any reason that they want, any time they want. There is nothing in Section 230 that requires a platform to be fair, consistent, unbiased or equal. Nor is there anything in Section 230 that remotely suggests that if you're not a platform then your a publisher or vice versa.
Show me a legal definition of a publisher that suggests otherwise. Show me the law. If that definition did exist, which it does not, it would be unconstitutional. You don't have a right to post 1488 shit on Twitter. You dont have a right to call nogs, "niggers" on Facebook. You don't even pay to use their services. You have no right to access their property. They can run their business any way they see fit.
You are trying to destroy section 230 protections for everyone by demanding that businesses foo what you want them to do. Sorry, but that's not only retarded, THAT'S illegal. If you're being slandered, sue the person slandering you.
(post is archived)