![Revenge [720x693 - 38KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/PpfM3s.jpg){kind=link}
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.
(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
Differing political opinions doesn't fall under this civil liability protection. You're mistaking making something illegal and extending government protection to people. The government doesn't have to shield people from civil liability. That's not a constitutional issue. If a company wants civil liability protection, they can moderate in good faith. Curating specific content is the same as become a news source, and a news source is liable for their content if it is slanderous, libelous, or causes other harm. A platform CAN be exempt from this liability for good faith removal of stuff like you described; calling people niggers or whatever. But if all they are doing is picking which voices are allowed to be heard, then they are just another news source.
(post is archived)