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.
Of course they have a First Amendment right...nobody is suggesting they don't. It's just not a fact, if it's an opinion...that's what this thread is about. Your First Amendment right, doesn't give you the right to redefine what the words opinion and fact mean.We call that the 1st Amendment here in the United States ... and, no, you don't have those protections in the shit hole you live in ...
Just like all the folks protesting outside the Capitol last January 6th, they were within the law ...
boom....yep....Protected or not, they disqualify Facebook from the Section 230 protections. FB is constantly deciding what content to publish, and that makes them publishers, so they should not be covered by 230.
100% wrong. Completely backwards.boom....yep....
if they are deleting content, based on their opinions…they are deciding what is published and what isn’t…hence they are not protected by the law granting them an exemption from lawsuits100% wrong. Completely backwards.
Moron... they cannot deny my rights while claiming theirs are right.. This is called content control. They should lose all 1st amendment protections.They are “allowed” to express their opinions on their platform.
It’s called property rights.
Whether they called something a fact that is defamatory is up to the court.
Point is that everyone is allowed to be free from claims of defamation if they’re expressing an opinion.
Most of you Biden hacks are just as clueless as Joe is.. He can't tell the difference from fact and fiction...There are lots of ways to interpret reality.
They aren’t denying you rights. There is no right to post on Facebook or any other website you don’t personally own.Moron... they cannot deny my rights while claiming theirs are right.. This is called content control. They should lose all 1st amendment protections.
If they didn’t delete content, there would be no law needed to grant them exemption from lawsuits.if they are deleting content, based on their opinions…they are deciding what is published and what isn’t…hence they are not protected by the law granting them an exemption from lawsuits
They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to change what i post or notate their own beliefs on my post. Fascitbook is about to die a very sordid death anyway. Trumps new platform makes Fascistbook look like a third grader made it...They aren’t denying you rights. There is no right to post on Facebook or any other website you don’t personally own.
Not sure about changing your post, but that’s not the question here.They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to change what i post or notate their own beliefs on my post.
Fascitbook is about to die a very sordid death anyway. Trumps new platform makes Fascistbook look like a third grader made it...
no that’s not why the law exist dumbassIf they didn’t delete content, there would be no law needed to grant them exemption from lawsuits.
The law only exists to give websites the ability to delete content while protecting them from such lawsuits.
Let’s say the law never existed. No section 230.no that’s not why the law exist dumbass
the law exist to exempt them from lawsuits based on what is posted
when they start deleting things they are deciding what is published and what isn’t
…hence publisher and thus the law doesn’t apply
i get you want to protect your big business donors and propagandist but the law is the law
People who had first dibs in newer technologies did not show much political activism when they started. So there are entities much larger than others and it is much more difficult to compete or even usurp them. Examples are all over the place for propaganda....For retirees organizations like AARP was not so political when started while AMAC as a late arrival has to chisel an identity. This had to be done on purpose. To many organizations with infrastructure and roots at all levels leaning Prog left.They aren’t denying you rights. There is no right to post on Facebook or any other website you don’t personally own.
if the law didn’t exist they could be sued for the content others postedLet’s say the law never existed. No section 230.
If a website never deleted anything, nothing, everything stayed up, then they could never be sued for defamation based on what’s posted because they would not be considered a publisher.
So the law would not exist to do so. There is no law necessary to do so.
Only IF they took down any content or any poster.if the law didn’t exist they could be sued for the content others posted
hahah read the law dumbassOnly IF they took down any content or any poster.
If a website just leave all content up, then they could never be sued because they’re not a publisher. Even without the law.
The law was specifically designed to give websites the ability to take down content and NOT be liable as a publisher.
It does!hahah read the law dumbass
the law protects them from what is posted…
Biden hack? What do you know about me?Most of you Biden hacks are just as clueless as Joe is.. He can't tell the difference from fact and fiction...
the law doesn’t protect them if they act like a publisher. By taking down things they disagree with, based on their opinion they are a publisherIt does!
It protects them no matter if they take down content or not.
Before the law, those that take down content could be sued. Those that didn’t, couldn’t be sued.
Not being able to take down content on websites is kind of a problem. Hence, they passed the law enabling it.
Colfax never shuts up but never says anything.the law doesn’t protect them if they act like a publisher. By taking down things they disagree with, based on their opinion they are a publisher
There is case law on this where another website did similar things
