No, you are the one who is irrelevant and wrong with all of your idiotic comments.They don’t have to claim anything about being a publisher or not.
The law says it’s irrelevant.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you are the one who is irrelevant and wrong with all of your idiotic comments.They don’t have to claim anything about being a publisher or not.
The law says it’s irrelevant.
TrollNo, you are the one who is irrelevant and wrong with all of your idiotic comments.
We all know that you are, but why keep proclaiming for yourself?Troll
It’s editorial discretion whether it’s before the fact or after the fact. There’s no difference. If CNN has a story on their page they decide to pull at a later date, it’s editorial discretion.
Your last sentence is incorrect. They don’t have to claim anything to be protected. That’s what section 230 does for them. If not for section 230, they would be liable regardless of what they claimed. Their claim is irrelevant. It’s what they do that matters.
Who cares what you think “should have” occurred? That’s irrelevant. Removing material after the fact remains an editorial decision.Editorial discretion after the fact would be either modifying someone else's work, or removing it, which if you did your actual editorial discretion before would mean it should have never been posted by you in the first place.
They only get the protection if they are not publishers, and if they are not publishers, there is no first amendment issue.
Who cares what you think “should have” occurred? That’s irrelevant. Removing material after the fact remains an editorial decision.
Your last sentence is applicable to traditional media, but ignores the effect of section 230. Section 230 gives protection to people who are publishers. If they weren’t publishers, it wouldn’t have been necessary.
Again, you can call it what we you want. It’s still an editorial decision.And a weasel move to be sure. "Someone whined about X and we give in, please don't hurt us!!!"
Section 230 gives people an out to say "we are not a publisher", i.e. the content isn't ours.
Again, you can call it what we you want. It’s still an editorial decision.
Section 230 does give them an out, but it doesn’t say they’re not a publisher. It says they’re not to have the liability of a publisher. Section 230 doesn’t take away their constitutional rights. It can’t.
Again, being given protection from liability does not mean they give up their first amendment rights.Since they aren't publishers, and thus the content isn't theirs BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, there is no 1st amendment issue.
Again, being given protection from liability does not mean they give up their first amendment rights.
They don’t say they aren’t publishers (or sometimes republisher or distributors), they say they’re not liable as publishers.
They have always retained the rights of publishers.
Rights and liabilities aren’t the same thing.
Why can’t they have both?They haven't given up their own first amendment rights, they just don't have it with regards to a platform they run that they state explicitly the content isn't theirs.
They get one or the other, not both.
Why can’t they have both?
As I said, they’re a publisher. They’re always a publisher. They get the protections of not being a publisher because Congress gave it to them. You say they don’t “deserve” those protections but that doesn’t matter. No one gives a shit what you think they deserve. What matters is what the law says and the law says they get the protections even though they’re a publisher.Because you can't be a publisher and not a publisher. Because being both gives them protections they don't deserve if they are going to decide the content on their supposed free exchange platform. If they are going to have editorial control, make them do it and suffer the consequences of owning the content, or let them be protected by the 1st amendment when they let people post regardless of them agreeing with them or not.
This whole bullshit of them terminating accounts for "breaking the rules" is nothing but a smokescreen for them removing people they dislike, views they dislike and classes they dislike.
As I said, they’re a publisher. They’re always a publisher. They get the protections of not being a publisher because Congress gave it to them. You say they don’t “deserve” those protections but that doesn’t matter. No one gives a shit what you think they deserve. What matters is what the law says and the law says they get the protections even though they’re a publisher.
So yeah. They get both. Deal with it.
Actually the law does say they get the best of both worlds because that’s the only way the internet makes sense. That’s literarily the entire point of the law. I don’t give a shit what you want or what you think should happen. That doesn’t change reality.Then they shouldn't get the protections, they should be removed and they should be held liable for anything they publish. Sorry, but bullshit laws don't mean they can have the best of both worlds.
Also, I haven't expressed my disdain for you in a few pages, so
I hope you suck a cock filled with AIDS, get AIDS, then get eaten by a hungry Ebola infected Tiger.
It does not comlply with the actual law, not the one you want ,moron.Why can’t they have both?
Actually the law does say they get the best of both worlds because that’s the only way the internet makes sense. That’s literarily the entire point of the law. I don’t give a shit what you want or what you think should happen. That doesn’t change reality.
Take away the law and the free exchange of ideas online will get DRAMATICALLY WORSE. You have the “if I can’t have it no one can” mentality of a spoiled child.
The law is the law. The fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant. You can sit and piss and moan all you want.The law is bullshit, any claims of first amendment protections while protected by the law is bullshit.
Dude, Twitter et al is already taking away the free exchange of ideas, you just don't care because the only people getting ghosted are people you despise.
You don't want the free exchange of ideas, you want the free exchange of YOUR ideas.
The law is the law. The fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant. You can sit and piss and moan all you want.
It’s irrelevant.
They have first amendment rights. The fact that you’re pissed that someone else has rights just shows what a pathetic little wannabe fascist you are.
If they do, their platform does.They do, their platforms do not, as they claim the opinions on those platforms are not theirs.