Trump sues Twitter, Google and Facebook alleging 'censorship'(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Trump sues Twitter, Google and Facebook alleging 'censorship'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57754435
76 comments
This is showmanship for the base. It has exactly zero legal merit or even intent.
It's grift. He's already sending out fundraising emails for the lawsuit.
Ha, good point. Since his accountant got charged just recently, I guess the fundraiser will say "Donate to my legal costs" and won't specify that it's not just (or even) to pay lawyers to fight the tech companies, but actually to pay lawyers to defend himself against the NY lawsuits.
His fundraising isn't even that restricted; it goes into a super PAC that can use the money for essentially anything: legal costs, future campaigns, transfers to other politicians he likes. He can even pay himself or family or cronies a salary out of it if he wants, and maybe he'll have to do that when the Trump Organization runs into a wall because it can no longer finance its debts.
You've just described the job description of "politician" ;)
He sued in Florida, despite terms of service agreements saying where any disputes must be settled, so the suits will be immediately tossed. But he's fund-raising off of this, and that's the real reason he's doing it.
Mind-reading? You know his motive?
If he were serious about winning, he'd have his lawyers do their homework and file a credible case in the proper courts. But his fundraising appeal went out immediately.
Correlation does not prove causality.
Filing the case is reasonable on its own. Leveraging the fundraising opportunity it creates is normal politics. Insisting the core motive IS fundraising is mind reading.
Filing the case is reasonable on its own. Leveraging the fundraising opportunity it creates is normal politics. Insisting the core motive IS fundraising is mind reading.
How is filing the case in the wrong court reasonable on its own?
Eh? Who has suggested it does? Disregard for the moment that it's Donald Trump so that we can speak without partisanism mucking things up. It doesn't take a mind reader to gauge the intent of another person based on their actions. Just basic empathic ability and critical thinking.
If you disagree with the conclusion then okay, go ahead and make an actual counterpoint. That's the whole point of discussion. Don't go accusing people of such outrageously ridiculous things as thinking that they have telepathic powers. You know perfectly well that sort of hyperbolic nonsense won't sway anyone.
If you disagree with the conclusion then okay, go ahead and make an actual counterpoint. That's the whole point of discussion. Don't go accusing people of such outrageously ridiculous things as thinking that they have telepathic powers. You know perfectly well that sort of hyperbolic nonsense won't sway anyone.
I’m sure that in the time leading up to Trump’s ban from Twitter & Facebook, the companies had multiple C-level meetings and spent countless personnel-hours coming up for a plan outlining if and when Trump would be banned from the platform. I’m sure that legal counsel was deeply involved in the decision-making process, as well as PR.
Twitter & Facebook were waiting for the perfect storm:
1. Their decision had to have good optics—the company had to appear, to the public, that it was doing the right thing.
2. Their decision had to be consistent—the relevant policies had to be written down and enacted long in advance.
3. Their decision had to have the right timing, politically.
I’m also sure that there’s a massive stack of CYA documentation that these companies can produce on a moment’s notice. It’ll be interesting to watch the court case, because I’m interested in seeing what kind of CYA documentation these companies produce. They knew that Trump is eager to litigate. They knew this lawsuit was coming, and they were preparing for it long before they banned him.
Twitter & Facebook were waiting for the perfect storm:
1. Their decision had to have good optics—the company had to appear, to the public, that it was doing the right thing.
2. Their decision had to be consistent—the relevant policies had to be written down and enacted long in advance.
3. Their decision had to have the right timing, politically.
I’m also sure that there’s a massive stack of CYA documentation that these companies can produce on a moment’s notice. It’ll be interesting to watch the court case, because I’m interested in seeing what kind of CYA documentation these companies produce. They knew that Trump is eager to litigate. They knew this lawsuit was coming, and they were preparing for it long before they banned him.
ya they must have put in some amount of legal insulation into their plan
> "We are demanding an end to the shadow-banning, a stop to the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and cancelling that you know so well," he said.
Is this an instance of shadow-banning? My understanding is shadow-banning is when a user thinks they're contributing, but nobody else (except admins) sees their contributions. I think that's how it's used on Reddit, at any rate.
Is this an instance of shadow-banning? My understanding is shadow-banning is when a user thinks they're contributing, but nobody else (except admins) sees their contributions. I think that's how it's used on Reddit, at any rate.
[deleted]
While I love XKCD and am not a fan of Trump, limiting the philosophical idea of "Free Speech" to explicitly being about the Federal Government is a fairly dangerous idea.
When this country was founded Government was by far the most powerful agency in people's lives. Merchants where important, had a lot of influence but still could not be too aggressive with a regent.
Today the Government has far less influence over your daily life than large corporations and you employer. In 1776 most people where farmers, the only agency that could deny your livelihood was the government (they ultimately had control over your land). Today government policies have far less of an impact than your employer on your livelihood.
The fact that a handful of oligarchs can decided that Trump doesn't need a voice is not democratic solution to a politician I radically disagree with that I would like. If you feel like the list of things you can't say publicly without ruining your career is shrinking, that is certainly a threat to the spirit of free speech.
When this country was founded Government was by far the most powerful agency in people's lives. Merchants where important, had a lot of influence but still could not be too aggressive with a regent.
Today the Government has far less influence over your daily life than large corporations and you employer. In 1776 most people where farmers, the only agency that could deny your livelihood was the government (they ultimately had control over your land). Today government policies have far less of an impact than your employer on your livelihood.
The fact that a handful of oligarchs can decided that Trump doesn't need a voice is not democratic solution to a politician I radically disagree with that I would like. If you feel like the list of things you can't say publicly without ruining your career is shrinking, that is certainly a threat to the spirit of free speech.
"Today the Government has far less influence over your daily life than large corporations and you employer." ... let me know when the average employer has the right to bust down your door and shove a gun in your face because you decide to grown some weed in your basement.
The East India Company finds your lack of historical perspective amusing.
You're correct about the control of speech. At the moment at least Twitter, Google, and Facebook are private companies, and under the law and in the eyes of the Free Market, they can choose what they want to show and what they don't. It's their product, their rules. They kept the former occupant of the oval office on their platforms for as long as it was profitable to them.
The solution entails more than questioning the philosophical idea of "Free Speech", it involves considering the nature of government and human rights in an entirely different light than the currently dominant neoliberal economic consensus.
The solution entails more than questioning the philosophical idea of "Free Speech", it involves considering the nature of government and human rights in an entirely different light than the currently dominant neoliberal economic consensus.
Let's try it out with HN? Maybe start a petition to demand that there is no more flagging/banning, etc. Anything goes in this marketplace of ideas, right? Let's stop letting dang tell us what we can and cannot say, eh? Let's stop the censorship now!
If the government allows companies to buy all the avenues to free speech, do you really have free speech? For reference, North Korea has rights to freedom of speech and assembly. But it definitely does not mean they actually have that right.
So arguing that the façade of a private company being allowed to shut you down is somehow rational is nothing beyond absurd. If you cannot express your speech anywhere because a mob disapproves, you don't have freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is not "Freedom to only listen to the things I want to hear." Otherwise there is no free speech, just what is culturally acceptable.
So arguing that the façade of a private company being allowed to shut you down is somehow rational is nothing beyond absurd. If you cannot express your speech anywhere because a mob disapproves, you don't have freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is not "Freedom to only listen to the things I want to hear." Otherwise there is no free speech, just what is culturally acceptable.
Oh, I'm not saying it's rational. I'm pointing out that it's the current state of the neoliberal economic consensus. Companies can determine and who and what to amplify or block because Free Market fundamentalism outweighs human rights concerns, globally.
> the façade of a private company being allowed to shut you down is somehow rational is nothing beyond absurd
Indeed, it is, but that's where we are.
> a mob disapproves
In this case, it's not a mob. It's a handful of people who care more about making money than upholding rights.
> there is no free speech, just what is culturally acceptable.
"Yet if all cannot be of one mind—as who looks they should be?—this doubtless is more wholesome, more prudent, and more Christian, that many be tolerated, rather than all compelled. I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which, as it extirpates all religions and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate" - John Milton, "Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing to the Parliament of England", 1644 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm
Free speech has always been constrained by what is culturally acceptable.
> the façade of a private company being allowed to shut you down is somehow rational is nothing beyond absurd
Indeed, it is, but that's where we are.
> a mob disapproves
In this case, it's not a mob. It's a handful of people who care more about making money than upholding rights.
> there is no free speech, just what is culturally acceptable.
"Yet if all cannot be of one mind—as who looks they should be?—this doubtless is more wholesome, more prudent, and more Christian, that many be tolerated, rather than all compelled. I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which, as it extirpates all religions and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate" - John Milton, "Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing to the Parliament of England", 1644 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm
Free speech has always been constrained by what is culturally acceptable.
You can't seriously be drawing parallels between Facebook and North Korea of all things. What could Facebook possibly do to prevent you from exercising your right to free speech and free assembly? If they have that power why aren't they using it to stamp out all of the various competing platforms that serve people banned from their own? This line of reasoning just doesn't make a lick of sense.
The solution to things like that (and we are nowhere near that) is antitrust law. But we are nowhere near that state today; the far right dominates talk radio and owns tons of local radio stations, and has Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN to get their message out, as well as lots of content on Facebook and Youtube even if those platforms ban some things.
Trump launches latest grift, seeking donations for a meritless lawsuit using fraudulent language.
A better title.
A better title.
I wonder if the trigger happy cowboys who flagged this story as soon as it appeared on the front page would have done the same with any other unknown person in place of Trump.
In fairness it's reasonable to not want the sort of inevitable flame war that will come of simply mentioning that Trump did anything whatsoever. Much as I'd like to, it's nearly impossible to have a measured conversation on the merits of the case itself when people keep steering it pell-mell into the wall. :\
It would not have made it to the front page in the first place if it wasn't Trump. People file spurious lawsuits that get dismissed instantly all the time.
My point is that it's three big tech companies that got sued, so it'd be normal to read about that here, and nobody would have reasons to flag the post.
Even if you hate Trump, then I think it's hard to not agree with him on that
No no no.
As a political office holder, he is not a private citizen. His speech is by definition government speech. Attempting to force private entities to broadcast government speech is...precisely the opposite of censorship.
As a political office holder, he is not a private citizen. His speech is by definition government speech. Attempting to force private entities to broadcast government speech is...precisely the opposite of censorship.
With what? He violated the TOS, and as a private citizen (or Commander in Chief, for that matter) he is not above the arbitration of digital contracts. There's no way this case isn't instantly thrown out, provided the judge has even a cursory familiarity with software licensing.
You can violate a TOS that encroach upon your rights granted by the government you know.
You know, it's strange, but as much as I want to reject the idea that companies are able to "censor" people, the reality is that large social media platforms have become de facto public squares in 2021. In that regard, he was actually silenced on a very large scale.
I live in Canada and not the US so I know little about how US laws work, but it does seem that both countries need to work on addressing the power that giant tech corporations have over speech.
Ideally I would like some sort of government sponsored, decentralized platform similar to matrix, but I imagine that both governments are incapable of producing or unwilling to produce anything of the sort...
I'm also very wary of government intervention given how little representation both the US and Canada peoples have, compared to who actually lobbies politicians.
As much as I do not care at all for Donald Trump, I do still want people, whose ideas I do not agree with for the most part, able to speak their mind.
I live in Canada and not the US so I know little about how US laws work, but it does seem that both countries need to work on addressing the power that giant tech corporations have over speech.
Ideally I would like some sort of government sponsored, decentralized platform similar to matrix, but I imagine that both governments are incapable of producing or unwilling to produce anything of the sort...
I'm also very wary of government intervention given how little representation both the US and Canada peoples have, compared to who actually lobbies politicians.
As much as I do not care at all for Donald Trump, I do still want people, whose ideas I do not agree with for the most part, able to speak their mind.
If we really wanted this to be a 'public square', how would that combine with a commercial for-profit entity?
Unless the government (the people) buys it and funds it through taxes, it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the concept of a public square, just like a newspaper isn't a public square, and the commercial TV and Radio isn't a public square either. Neither are phones. Or billboards.
If something becomes ubiquitous enough to be regarded a public square, we either have to make it one, or fix the reason why a commercial for-profit company is regarded as public square in the first place.
Unless the government (the people) buys it and funds it through taxes, it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the concept of a public square, just like a newspaper isn't a public square, and the commercial TV and Radio isn't a public square either. Neither are phones. Or billboards.
If something becomes ubiquitous enough to be regarded a public square, we either have to make it one, or fix the reason why a commercial for-profit company is regarded as public square in the first place.
> fix the reason why a commercial for-profit company is regarded as public square in the first place.
This would be ideal. The network effect is strong. As Barrin92's response to my comment stated, anyone can make an alternative site. But all of the value comes from the large networks of people on these sites.
I would prefer if such a "public square" site weren't for profit, if I'm going to be honest. Not sure how well that would work, but profit motives introduce too many flaws for such a necessary part of society. OTOH, so do influences from other means...
This would be ideal. The network effect is strong. As Barrin92's response to my comment stated, anyone can make an alternative site. But all of the value comes from the large networks of people on these sites.
I would prefer if such a "public square" site weren't for profit, if I'm going to be honest. Not sure how well that would work, but profit motives introduce too many flaws for such a necessary part of society. OTOH, so do influences from other means...
The problem is no 'public square' can be defended adequately, particularly if everyone can access it.
Misrepresentation of the publics interest and voice will continue to occur. There is no solution that I'm aware of.
Misrepresentation of the publics interest and voice will continue to occur. There is no solution that I'm aware of.
You're just describing Usenet, which still exists, and is still easily accessible, and has been around for decades on end. Honestly any action to crack down on social media for enforcing their terms of use for their own platform is a solution looking for a problem.
> I would prefer if such a "public square" site weren't for profit, if I'm going to be honest. Not sure how well that would work
Works perfectly fine. There are plenty of alt-platforms that are based on self-hosted principles like that (Mastodon, Pleroma, Matrix), and all of them are about the most "free" platforms (rather, protocols) you can find.
Works perfectly fine. There are plenty of alt-platforms that are based on self-hosted principles like that (Mastodon, Pleroma, Matrix), and all of them are about the most "free" platforms (rather, protocols) you can find.
Yea, I do think protocols, not platforms, is the way to go. I especially like the way Mastodon works because you can allow/disallow federation of servers without actually being able to deplatform others
As a Mastodon admin, I wholeheartedly agree. I can decide not to connect to a given server, but I can't stop that server from existing. I think this is an excellent design.
[deleted]
There’s precedent for exactly that kind of relationship—commercial, for-profit, but legally restrained to do business with anyone without discrimination. It’s called a “common carrier”.
Although it was the FCC under Trump that, in 2017, removed common carrier status as a requirement for ISPs. Hard to make the case that ISPs are not common carriers but Twitter is.
Although it was the FCC under Trump that, in 2017, removed common carrier status as a requirement for ISPs. Hard to make the case that ISPs are not common carriers but Twitter is.
How can you exert your constitutional rights if the government allows companies to create/purchase/monopolize every avenue in which to express your rights? What if you had to pay a toll to utilize corporate paid sidewalks and roads? How could you protest the government? Likewise, the internet infrastructure we have today was created by the government, so it only make sense that the fundamental rights we have protected by the constitution be respected here as well.
I don't understand why many liberals defend a corporations freedom to silence speech but get angry when conservatives in the government do it. Six of one, half dozen of the other, it's still speech being silenced by someone more powerful than you. But one being a corporation and one being a politician doesn't change the fact that both limit freedom of speech protected by the constitution.
I don't understand why many liberals defend a corporations freedom to silence speech but get angry when conservatives in the government do it. Six of one, half dozen of the other, it's still speech being silenced by someone more powerful than you. But one being a corporation and one being a politician doesn't change the fact that both limit freedom of speech protected by the constitution.
“ I don't understand why many liberals defend a corporations freedom to silence speech but get angry when conservatives in the government do it. ”
Because it’s a false equivalence that has nothing to do with being “liberal”.
The government has the power of coercion. No corporation has that by law.
In general, you are conflating the right to free speech with the privilege of easy armchair dissemination of one’s speech. Simply, your right to say anything doesn’t extend to forcing the world to disseminate and listen to what you have to say. Frankly, that extension is very much 1984.
In extremis, Trump has the means to publish a newsletter and nobody is stopping him from doing it.
Because it’s a false equivalence that has nothing to do with being “liberal”.
The government has the power of coercion. No corporation has that by law.
In general, you are conflating the right to free speech with the privilege of easy armchair dissemination of one’s speech. Simply, your right to say anything doesn’t extend to forcing the world to disseminate and listen to what you have to say. Frankly, that extension is very much 1984.
In extremis, Trump has the means to publish a newsletter and nobody is stopping him from doing it.
If you have a right to bear arms, but no company in the country's sells a gun, do you have the "right" to bear arms?
The answer is: no you don't. Because the government enables these companies to do these things that enroach upon your rights while making people like you believe you still have said rights simply because it's not the government proper doing it. The government and through lobbying can influence and control a lot of what you do without legislation you know.
The answer is: no you don't. Because the government enables these companies to do these things that enroach upon your rights while making people like you believe you still have said rights simply because it's not the government proper doing it. The government and through lobbying can influence and control a lot of what you do without legislation you know.
Every avenue? The right has Fox News, Newsmax, OANN, hundreds of local TV stations, and thousands of radio stations running conservative talk radio. They have no trouble getting their message out. On Facebook, most of the people with the highest engagement are right wing.
Maybe that is because the United States is more conservative than you assumed
You can't have it both ways: either you are being censored and silenced for your views, or you are not.
It is a scary proposition that an elite few media companies can control the voices that reach the public. Definitely room for abuse there. Not sure how best to address it for all parties concerned. Censorship at this point is just easier. Perhaps it always will be.
[deleted]
People can speak their mind, it's just that nobody else is obligated to host you speaking your mind.
The issue isn't Donald Trump being silenced, the issue is wannabe tinpot dictators like him trying to coerce private business into doing his bidding. That's the actual free speech issue if there is one. Nobody should be compelled to host anyone else's speech.
Social media sites are not 'de facto public squares' in any way. It's trivial technically to create an alternative site to the incumbents, that's why there's already like half a dozen alternatives spawning around Trump's political ecosystem. It's just that the content on those sites is so godawful within days of them going online that everyone runs for the hills who has a few brain-cells left.
It is so ridiculous to paint people like Trump, literal oligarchs, as victims of private business lol.
The issue isn't Donald Trump being silenced, the issue is wannabe tinpot dictators like him trying to coerce private business into doing his bidding. That's the actual free speech issue if there is one. Nobody should be compelled to host anyone else's speech.
Social media sites are not 'de facto public squares' in any way. It's trivial technically to create an alternative site to the incumbents, that's why there's already like half a dozen alternatives spawning around Trump's political ecosystem. It's just that the content on those sites is so godawful within days of them going online that everyone runs for the hills who has a few brain-cells left.
It is so ridiculous to paint people like Trump, literal oligarchs, as victims of private business lol.
It’s in no way trivial to create an alternative site. What makes those social media platforms what they are is the network of people. That’s like saying if Ma Bell decided to kick someone off the telephone system in the 70s that they could just create an alternative network.
That’s without even talking about stuff like being kicked off app stores, AWS, other hosting, or even their domain name.
That’s without even talking about stuff like being kicked off app stores, AWS, other hosting, or even their domain name.
It's not at all like ATT kicking everyone off the telephone system. If the ISPs providing the bandwidth kicked people off simply because they don't like what they say, then it would be similar, but these are software as a service organizations, and you are free to use that still available bandwidth to use a different service, or even make your own. The gold is in the size of the audience, and that's what these companies have built, and done so by setting guidelines and providing incentives to bring the users.
There's absolutely no right for you or anyone else to have a guaranteed audience, though plenty of politicians try to make it so by using taxpayer money to let you know they stole some money from one taxpayer and gave it to a larger voting bloc friendly to them.
So, yeah, it's a few days of work to build a twitter replacement, but if you want that audience, you have to put in the sweat to build it, not just jump up and down and demand that you have a right to one that someone else built.
There's absolutely no right for you or anyone else to have a guaranteed audience, though plenty of politicians try to make it so by using taxpayer money to let you know they stole some money from one taxpayer and gave it to a larger voting bloc friendly to them.
So, yeah, it's a few days of work to build a twitter replacement, but if you want that audience, you have to put in the sweat to build it, not just jump up and down and demand that you have a right to one that someone else built.
So in essence: Don't get too popular, because if you do, the government will restrict your ability to moderate the content you host.
Yep, that's why Instragram will never work, no one will ever steal user share from ICQ, and Myspace will be around forever.
If a quarter of the people on planet Earth using Facebook isn't enough, is there a threshold in which you WOULD call it a public square? Just curious.
No there is no threshold because Facebook is in no conceivable sense comparable to public land. The reason the public square is public is because it's not fungible, there's only one center of the town.
You can be on a dozen social networks, or on none, and hitting enter and going somewhere on the internet takes (almost) the same time regardless of where you go,in other words Facebook is trivially replaceable the same way it replaced MySpace, regardless of how large it is. The question is whether Facebook exercises market power, not whether it is large, which is the exact same flawed argument that people use in regards to Google.
What actually has public character is the physical infrastructure of the net, maybe the ISP level, but not digital products, at least none I have seen yet.
You can be on a dozen social networks, or on none, and hitting enter and going somewhere on the internet takes (almost) the same time regardless of where you go,in other words Facebook is trivially replaceable the same way it replaced MySpace, regardless of how large it is. The question is whether Facebook exercises market power, not whether it is large, which is the exact same flawed argument that people use in regards to Google.
What actually has public character is the physical infrastructure of the net, maybe the ISP level, but not digital products, at least none I have seen yet.
nklop(2)
nklop(2)
Issue is common carrier vs publishers.
Common carrier: service provider is not responsible for any information customers transmit.
Publisher: service provider is responsible for which customer-supplied information is transmitted.
Section 203 bends the line between these, absolving service provider from liability of content while allowing good-faith effort to cull bad content. T/G/F broke that line by conflating “opposing views” with “bad content” unto sociopolitical ends.
At some point a court or legislature must clarify that making bad-faith deletions of content nullifies the 203 protection. Here we go.
Common carrier: service provider is not responsible for any information customers transmit.
Publisher: service provider is responsible for which customer-supplied information is transmitted.
Section 203 bends the line between these, absolving service provider from liability of content while allowing good-faith effort to cull bad content. T/G/F broke that line by conflating “opposing views” with “bad content” unto sociopolitical ends.
At some point a court or legislature must clarify that making bad-faith deletions of content nullifies the 203 protection. Here we go.
There is no such thing as nullifying 230 protection. It doesnt have a clause on how you "lose protection."
The law says "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."
Otherwise objectionable is a pretty broad brush to take down anything you want, THAT YOU DONT LIKE. And thats the point. If you build a platform you can host whatever you want, and if you take down things you dont like, that doesnt make you the speaker of what remains. What would a "bad faith" removal of non-objectionable content even look like? Removing it just to annoy the person, basically "don't pick on people for fun?"
Imagine if youtube took down spam, and in doing so became the speaker of every other video it hosted.
The law says "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."
Otherwise objectionable is a pretty broad brush to take down anything you want, THAT YOU DONT LIKE. And thats the point. If you build a platform you can host whatever you want, and if you take down things you dont like, that doesnt make you the speaker of what remains. What would a "bad faith" removal of non-objectionable content even look like? Removing it just to annoy the person, basically "don't pick on people for fun?"
Imagine if youtube took down spam, and in doing so became the speaker of every other video it hosted.
Section 230 is literally designed to give content providers freedom to moderate & keep their site as they please. It's designed to allow sites to have liberties to do as they please.
This desire to re-imagine 230, to invent these differing categories, or to imagine additional obligations to carry content, is fabricated made up nonsense with zero basis in fact. It's a complete schtick. Personally, to me, it comes off as a vengeful control act, often by influences/camps who rightfully these platforms should want to stay away from for good cause, but that's a weakly held opinion of myself.
I normally am horrified by corporate rights, by treating corporations as people, but in this case, I 100% think 230 did the right thing, and allowed companies to build the sites they wanted to build, rather than having to get swamped by whomever came by & wanted to use the site for whatever dreadful horrible affairs they wanted.
This desire to re-imagine 230, to invent these differing categories, or to imagine additional obligations to carry content, is fabricated made up nonsense with zero basis in fact. It's a complete schtick. Personally, to me, it comes off as a vengeful control act, often by influences/camps who rightfully these platforms should want to stay away from for good cause, but that's a weakly held opinion of myself.
I normally am horrified by corporate rights, by treating corporations as people, but in this case, I 100% think 230 did the right thing, and allowed companies to build the sites they wanted to build, rather than having to get swamped by whomever came by & wanted to use the site for whatever dreadful horrible affairs they wanted.
No, they didn't ban Trump for "opposing views", but for calling for violence and spreading demonstrably false information, repeatedly. They can document this, along with the dozens of warnings they gave Trump, and they will whenever Trump, after losing the first round instantly (terms of service say you must sue company X in the state where it is headquartered, you chose Florida, go away), refiles in the proper places, they'll do that.
Exactly. No one's "deplatforming" (:eyeroll:) George Will for being a conservative. The sane, rational conservative voices still have full access to those platforms.
(I'm not a conservative, but I can appreciate that there are still clear heads on the right who have interesting things to say even if I disagree with them.)
(I'm not a conservative, but I can appreciate that there are still clear heads on the right who have interesting things to say even if I disagree with them.)
Construing common opposing views as “violence and lies” does not, historically, end well.