bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,166
- 47,312
- Thread starter
- #221
It doesn't apply to publishers. It claims to apply only to "platforms." Facebook is operating like a publisher, not a platform.Section 230 applies to every other website too. Hard to say government protects a monopoly when it extends that protection to literally every one of their competitors.Of course it's a government protected monopoly. That's irrefutable. Rule 230 is a federal regulation that protects it, and it's clearly a monopoly. It's far more of a monopoly than Standard Oil ever was.It’s not a government protected monopoly.It's a government protected monopoly. It should have been split up long ago.Ah, so you’re okay with violating the constitution as long as it supports your politicians?To some extent. However, I don't have a problem with it since Facebook is nothing more than a propaganda organ now, and it's a monopoly.Doesn’t matter. It’s compelling speech.Only of politicians running for office.
Kinda sounds a little fascist.
But you do have a justification for acting a little like a fascist.
Speaking of section 230, this law attempts to break it, however the supremacy clause would prevent that.
Man, Floridians really don’t understand how government works.
I've already explained this to you at least 1000 times.
Facebook has no competitors, moron.