I think President Trump has played this brilliantly. And I agree with the nearby thread that Trump’s recent poking at Scarborough was, at least in part, aimed at goading Twitter into finding an excuse to de-platform the President. They took the bait.
Never thought they were neutral. FB either for that matter. That’s why I’ve never subscribed to either and yet my life goes on just fine...imagine that.
I understand what both are for and were probly a great idea at one time...until both were basterdized by the left.
Social media (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) is either:
A “platform” that allows all opinions and is protected by the 1st Amendment. Like Ma Bell in the 1950s, they couldn’t refuse to hook up a phone for you because they didn’t like your politics in your phone conversations.
A for profit private business that can do as they please and ban anyone they want, just like any other publishing house. Then they also can be sued for slander and libel for any content.
You can’t have both.
What’s with the wool caps worn indoors?
Here’s the main thing that can save the likes of Twitter, aside from the fact that they are not a monopoly. Their legal immunity is relative, not absolute. They already censor the content that gets through, and as such, they are still more of a service provider than a publisher. So it’s basically a gray area. But you know that they censor lots of things. Anything from personal threats to terrorist propaganda, pornography, hate speech, etc. etc. on and on.
The reason is that this is still a legitimate topic is because political opinion has always been considered an inherent right in the free world, and though our first amendment really only stops the government from (passing laws) infringing on right to speak, assemble, or observe religion, the press in particular has always had a massive soft spot for political dissidents who have been oppressed because of their opinions and positions. Well... until recently.
What kind of moral relativism lumps (certain kinds, but not all) political though in with other more accepted censored content? That is more of a social question, I’m afraid.
But should they be free from legal liability?
I don’t think they should.
The kid who starts a website in his parents basement can still get sued if the wrong things are conveyed on his format. It’s the big dogs with huge corporate attorneys who seem to be safe. Fk’m
Section 230 does not require neutrality.
The protections are granted in blanket fashion to any company which hosts user dialog.
Of course that can be changed with new law. But the existing law does not require these companies to allow any and every point of view in exchange for protection.
Those who conflate the two are ignorant of the law.
BOYCOTT these Censor Nazis ...
VOTE WITH YOUR FEET.
BOYCOTT anyone who does business with them
VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET
Cut off and Let the evil vine wither.
.