Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

917

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/why-ban-of-realdonaldtrump-proves-twitter-not-just-a-platform/

We know the trick. This does not stop big tech, it helps them kill their competition, because alt-tech cannot survive in an envrionment where they can be sued for 3rd party content. BigTech is the only ones that can deal with the legalities of posting 3rd party content.

They're never going to stop trying to kill the internet.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/why-ban-of-realdonaldtrump-proves-twitter-not-just-a-platform/ We know the trick. This does not stop big tech, it helps them kill their competition, because alt-tech cannot survive in an envrionment where they can be sued for 3rd party content. BigTech is the only ones that can deal with the legalities of posting 3rd party content. They're never going to stop trying to kill the internet.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (34).
[–] • 0 pt

There won't be any "instant unmoderated content" as without 230 the service hosting it is liable for those posts.

[–] • 0 pt

No it's not, not any more than your phone company is liable for content you send. Section 230 just lets them have it both ways.

[–] • 0 pt

If what you say is true 230 would have never been needed in the first place. It was the rare case of govenment being proactive. What do you mean both ways? Oh the publisher vs platform thing? does not apply to 230, in fact, those words aren't even used.

[–] • 0 pt

Both ways: immune to liability from user generated content, like a phone company, and yet able to determine what speech is and isn't acceptable for publishing, like a newspaper.

It was not proactive, it was created in response to an early internet lawsuit that had large liability implications.

Basically, they would have made every website like either 4chan or newsweek dot com. At this point, you must be deliberately not getting it.