Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

[Faun]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.

www.investopedia.com

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."

Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one

LOL

You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.

lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers

Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.

Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.

No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.

If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.

And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.

So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?

Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.

The case was dismissed because of rule 230

Of course it was since they're covered by rule 230.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron. How many times are we going for a ride on this wheel of circular logic?

I'm enjoying watching you chase your own tail, so as many times as you want.

Still, by the definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not one.

 

[Faun]

Steven Crowder has a great legal argument. They are destroying his business.

That's not a good legal argument at all, haha. They have no right to publish on Facebook.

Sure they do. Facebook cannot changes the terms of the deal he made when he started his business. Furthermore, they don't enroce their rules evenly. Crowder has all kinds of reasons to win a lawsuit.

There's no law which compels them to enforce their rules evenly. Same as this site.

It's evidence of deceptive trade, which, unlike a breach of contract claim, allows for treble exemplary damages.

Nope, since you don't have a right to use their service. Just like restaurants can deny service to people who don't dress according to their policies.

 

[bripat9643]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

 

[bripat9643]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.

www.investopedia.com

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."

Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one

LOL

You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.

lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers

Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.

Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.

No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.

If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.

And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.

So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?

Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.

The case was dismissed because of rule 230

Of course it was since they're covered by rule 230.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron. How many times are we going for a ride on this wheel of circular logic?

I'm enjoying watching you chase your own tail, so as many times as you want.

Still, by the definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not one.

Then it's not covered by rule 230, you fucking moron. What you're "enjoying" is contradicting yourself.

This thread shows why it's a waste of time to argue with morons who lack that capacity to commit logic.

 

[Faun]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

 

[bripat9643]

They can be sued.

Anybody can be sued. So what?

Facebok argued in court that it couldn't. How many times do you morons need this explained to you?

 

[Faun]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.

www.investopedia.com

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."

Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one

LOL

You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.

lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers

Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.

Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.

No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.

If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.

And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.

So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?

Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.

The case was dismissed because of rule 230

Of course it was since they're covered by rule 230.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron. How many times are we going for a ride on this wheel of circular logic?

I'm enjoying watching you chase your own tail, so as many times as you want.

Still, by the definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not one.

Then it's not covered by rule 230, you fucking moron. What you're "enjoying" is contradicting yourself.

This thread shows why it's a waste of time to argue with morons who lack that capacity to commit logic.

And yet they are covered as you yourself posted.

 

[bripat9643]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

It sure as hell did claim it, moron. I posted the evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.

www.investopedia.com

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."

Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one

LOL

You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.

lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers

Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.

Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.

No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.

If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.

And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.

So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?

Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.

The case was dismissed because of rule 230

Of course it was since they're covered by rule 230.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron. How many times are we going for a ride on this wheel of circular logic?

I'm enjoying watching you chase your own tail, so as many times as you want.

Still, by the definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not one.

Then it's not covered by rule 230, you fucking moron. What you're "enjoying" is contradicting yourself.

This thread shows why it's a waste of time to argue with morons who lack that capacity to commit logic.

And yet they are covered as you yourself posted.

Another trip on the FAUX wheel of circular logic

 

[colfax_m]

And people have a right to sue it.

They’ll lose because they have no legal argument.

They have a good legal argument. Steven Crowder has a great legal argument. They are destroying his business. Facebook has destroyed a lot of busniesses, and every one of the is entitled to sue it.

Their lawsuits will fail. Just because your business fails doesn’t mean you have rights to receive damages from someone else.

 

[bripat9643]

And people have a right to sue it.

They’ll lose because they have no legal argument.

They have a good legal argument. Steven Crowder has a great legal argument. They are destroying his business. Facebook has destroyed a lot of busniesses, and every one of the is entitled to sue it.

Their lawsuits will fail. Just because your business fails doesn’t mean you have rights to receive damages from someone else.

it does when Facebook caused it to fail be censoring you.

 

[Faun]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

It sure as hell did claim it, moron. I posted the evidence.

Which is what I said. "you posted it." Which you did with a link to a lawsuit dismissed because they are covered by rule 230.

Thanks for posting that. It was very helpful to show they are protected by the law.

 

[colfax_m]

Facebook argues that it's protected from lawsuits by rule 230.

Only when those lawsuits require that Facebook be treated as a publisher.

 

[colfax_m]

it does when Facebook caused it to fail be censoring you.

It doesn’t given that Crowder doesn’t own Facebook and they have no obligation to provide him with anything.

 

[Faun]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.

www.investopedia.com

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."

Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one

LOL

You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.

lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers

Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.

Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.

No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.

If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.

And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.

So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?

Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.

The case was dismissed because of rule 230

Of course it was since they're covered by rule 230.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron. How many times are we going for a ride on this wheel of circular logic?

I'm enjoying watching you chase your own tail, so as many times as you want.

Still, by the definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not one.

Then it's not covered by rule 230, you fucking moron. What you're "enjoying" is contradicting yourself.

This thread shows why it's a waste of time to argue with morons who lack that capacity to commit logic.

And yet they are covered as you yourself posted.

Another trip on the FAUX wheel of circular logic

LOL

You go boy, you'll get it!

 

[bripat9643]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

It sure as hell did claim it, moron. I posted the evidence.

Which is what I said. "you posted it." Which you did with a link to a lawsuit dismissed because they are covered by rule 230.

Thanks for posting that. It was very helpful to show they are protected by the law.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Facebook argues that it's protected from lawsuits by rule 230.

Only when those lawsuits require that Facebook be treated as a publisher.

It's either a publisher or it isn't.

Do you actually believe it can pretend to be one or the other depending on the circumstances?

That would be typical leftwing dumb think.

You just admitted that you're incapable of committing logic.

 

[bripat9643]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.

www.investopedia.com

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."

Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one

LOL

You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.

lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers

Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.

Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.

No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.

If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.

And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.

So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?

Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.

The case was dismissed because of rule 230

Of course it was since they're covered by rule 230.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron. How many times are we going for a ride on this wheel of circular logic?

I'm enjoying watching you chase your own tail, so as many times as you want.

Still, by the definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not one.

Then it's not covered by rule 230, you fucking moron. What you're "enjoying" is contradicting yourself.

This thread shows why it's a waste of time to argue with morons who lack that capacity to commit logic.

And yet they are covered as you yourself posted.

Another trip on the FAUX wheel of circular logic

LOL

You go boy, you'll get it!

 

[Faun]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

It sure as hell did claim it, moron. I posted the evidence.

Which is what I said. "you posted it." Which you did with a link to a lawsuit dismissed because they are covered by rule 230.

Thanks for posting that. It was very helpful to show they are protected by the law.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron.

Nope, it doesn't. So says the FCC and when they say that, it means something. Whereas when you say something, folks just point at you and laugh.

 

[bripat9643]

Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone

They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.

They are a common carrier. Facebook claimed in court that it's a common carrier, nimrod.

You Biden dick sucking assholes want it both ways. You want to claim that Facebook can control its content, i.e., function as a publisher, but that it's protected from lawsuits because it's a common carrier.

Nope, they claimed no such thing.

And why would they since they're not one according to the definition of a common carrier?

It sure as hell did claim it, moron. I posted the evidence.

Which is what I said. "you posted it." Which you did with a link to a lawsuit dismissed because they are covered by rule 230.

Thanks for posting that. It was very helpful to show they are protected by the law.

Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron.

Nope, it doesn't. So says the FCC and when they say that, it means something. Whereas when you say something, folks just point at you and laugh.

Who does rule 230 cover?