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.
Ya, but, they have always had terms of service, it is after all private property, and they’ve long had moderate content for criminal activity right.. .like ISIS. I don’t have a problem with TOS, like any other business, I have a problem with stifling competition. I don’t think people realize that if you changed the laws to make them publishers a lot MORE content will end up being banned.As Facebook and social media has done. Sect 230 isn't perfect but it's as close as we have.
Again, the intent of the law was to not make platforms have to moderate content. We are far far from that.
When the TOS becomes selective enforcement, I have a problem.Ya, but, they have always had terms of service, it is after all private property, and they’ve long had moderate content for criminal activity right.. .like ISIS. I don’t have a problem with TOS, like any other business, I have a problem with stifling competition. I don’t think people realize that if you changed the laws to make them publishers a lot MORE content will end up being banned.
They don't give a shit. It's a fake concern, an excuse.. I don’t think people realize that if you changed the laws to make them publishers a lot MORE content will end up being banned.
I have yet to see any objective evidence that they are not overall applied evenly.When the TOS becomes selective enforcement, I have a problem.
And by making them publishers, it makes FACEBOOK accountable for what they fact check and publish.
If they don't want that, be a platform and stop fact checking, applying TOS evenly.
Again, s230 means a platform doesn't gage to remove anything since they are not liable.
Heh, ok.I have yet to see any objective evidence that they are not overall applied evenly.
www.cnn.com
No, if they create content they are a publisher.Yet if they claim something is a fact, they publish it.
This, this and this again.It's flim flam is what it is. This has exactly nothing to do with the rights and responsibilities of "publishers”. You're just rationalizing revenge.
Then you are just ignoring the obvious.I have yet to see any objective evidence that they are not overall applied evenly.
They commission the fact checkers.No, if they create content they are a publisher.
No matter how much you want to twist it, that is what being a publisher is. All sites, including FB and Twitter are responsible for the things they publish. They are not, and should not be, responsible for the things YOU publish. They can, of course, remove anything you publish from their site at any time they wish, it is their server, their hardware and their website YOU are publishing on.
And that does not transfer the liability from YOU to them because they did so.
Finally, removing that curation simply ensures that no site anywhere will be able to give anyone a chance to publish their content as they see fit. This is not good for people or speech. It is nonsensical revenge.
Show me the data, otherwise it is just more rightwing whining.Then you are just ignoring the obvious.
Yes you are.They commission the fact checkers.
I'm not playing hide n go semantics.
Who is restricting?How does restricting what's posted on a private forum, that you don't pay to use, equate to "hate" for the Constitution?
An irrelevant inquiry, and one steeped in ignorance of the issues.I am wondering how someone posting on this forum can claim there is nowhere else to go
Whooooooooooooooosh!META, Apple and Google are already separate entities...
Fallacious derailing.MinTrut is just a troll.
See above.Just relishing the negative attention.
See above.But there are people genuinely drawn to the BS he's slinging, and it's dangerous.
Perhaps.You just posted free speech.
Perhaps.Those will kill you by the way.
No, that’s modern conservatives who brag openly about how they they only get their information from incredibly dishonest partisan hacks and never consider any sources outside their bubble.The modern liberal celebrates their willful ignorance, swinging it like a jackboot's cudgel.
Do you then see your error above?I am a vehement Constitutionalist.
You could certainly say this, but I would not.You could certainly say that I "prize the Constitution".
It has the right, but not the duty, but you've stated this so badly that I can only guess at what you meant to write.Facebook has no Constitutional duty to exercise free speech on its platform. It simply doesn't...
Sounds good.Let's clarify.
Which argument?Please cite the Constitutional provision supporting your argument.
