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.
You fucking retard, it was written in 1934, they had no idea what a "website" would be, They protected "public access" so that radio and emerging television would not be liable for pubic forums hosted on their respective mediums.Utter nonsense. Section 230 doesn’t say anything about the website being a “public forum”. The term isn’t used let alone defined. Section 230 applies to any website where users submit content.If social media doesn't fit the definition of a public forum, then it isn't protected by 230 and can be sued for the bullshit slander and libel they publish non-stop.
Your argument doesn’t have a factual basis.
You shouldn’t be so nasty, especially when you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.Wow, the Congress realize that the internet was different and put in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934....
Have you even read section 230?You fucking retard, it was written in 1934, they had no idea what a "website" would be, They protected "public access" so that radio and emerging television would not be liable for pubic forums hosted on their respective mediums.Utter nonsense. Section 230 doesn’t say anything about the website being a “public forum”. The term isn’t used let alone defined. Section 230 applies to any website where users submit content.If social media doesn't fit the definition of a public forum, then it isn't protected by 230 and can be sued for the bullshit slander and libel they publish non-stop.
Your argument doesn’t have a factual basis.
I'm not complaining, I'm offering friendly advice.
Have you even read section 230?
You didn’t answer the question as to whether you’ve read section 230.Fucktard, you don't even know what year it's from.
It doesn't really matter in my view. But for the sake of clarity, it was, in fact, the behavior that the baker found offensive. He didn't approve of a man marrying another man. It had nothing to do with "who" they were. It's what they were planning he wanted no part of.Sometimes differences really are different.I disagree it's the exact same argument.But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.
The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.
Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.
These are totally difference causes of action.
Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."
It’s not always easy to tell them apart, but if you think about it for five seconds it’s apparent.
No one would care if the baker refused to bake the cake for the couple because they were verbally abusive but everyone is up in arms because Trump is kicked off Twitter after acting like an asshole for years.
The behavior is inextricable from the identity. Gay people get gay married. Non-gay people do not. There’s no difference between discriminating against the identity and the behavior.It doesn't really matter in my view. But for the sake of clarity, it was, in fact, the behavior that the baker found offensive. He didn't approve of a man marrying another man. It had nothing to do with "who" they were. It's what they were planning he wanted no part of.Sometimes differences really are different.I disagree it's the exact same argument.But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.
The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.
Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.
These are totally difference causes of action.
Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."
It’s not always easy to tell them apart, but if you think about it for five seconds it’s apparent.
No one would care if the baker refused to bake the cake for the couple because they were verbally abusive but everyone is up in arms because Trump is kicked off Twitter after acting like an asshole for years.
The behavior is inextricable from the identity. Gay people get gay married. Non-gay people do not. There’s no difference between discriminating against the identity and the behavior. Like saying you don’t discriminate against Jewish people, but you do discriminate against people wearing yarmulkes.It doesn't really matter in my view. But for the sake of clarity, it was, in fact, the behavior that the baker found offensive. He didn't approve of a man marrying another man. It had nothing to do with "who" they were. It's what they were planning he wanted no part of.Sometimes differences really are different.I disagree it's the exact same argument.But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.
The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.
Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.
These are totally difference causes of action.
Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."
It’s not always easy to tell them apart, but if you think about it for five seconds it’s apparent.
No one would care if the baker refused to bake the cake for the couple because they were verbally abusive but everyone is up in arms because Trump is kicked off Twitter after acting like an asshole for years.
And I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.
It's the only legitimate option for a free societyAnd I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.
We tried it. It nearly tore the country apart.It's the only legitimate option for a free societyAnd I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.
It has now been confirmed that you do know what prohibition of free speech is and In fact endorse it.I want to thank the number of people here who have identified they dont believe in free speech when it does not match the whim of their feelings
That label should stick with you for a Long Time
It doesn’t appear that you know what Free Speech is.
I don't know why you're so convinced that liberals are your enemies. Traditionally, they're as excited as you are about government controlling businesses.Many many liberals pulled off their disguises today by revealing that they feel censorship of opposing views is good and warranted and banishment of those who hold those beliefs or experiences is equally permissible and justified
Privileges are earnedPosting on social media is a privilege, not a right.
(to borrow a phrase)
I disagree it's the exact same argument.
The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.
So, quit bitching about Desantis, because it's no different.And I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.
I wouldn't call them liberals. They are FAR from liberal. I am liberal.I don't know why you're so convinced that liberals are your enemies. Traditionally, they're as excited as you are about government controlling businesses.Many many liberals pulled off their disguises today by revealing that they feel censorship of opposing views is good and warranted and banishment of those who hold those beliefs or experiences is equally permissible and justified
Give it a year or so. When "Big Tech" turns against them, when conservatives build their own social media sites, you'll see - liberals will be right there with you, eager to use the government to "rein in" companies that piss them off.
