The election is over so why is social media still banning/deleting posts they deem wrong?

[pknopp]

Now you are arguing for authoritarian big government actions to address this still?

Protecting every Americans first amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS is the antithesis of authoritarian.

You need to take a class on the 1st Amendment and stop being a hypocrite on your support for big authoritarian governments.

No, the internet needs to be regulated under the FCC as a public square because THATS WHAT IT IS.

See, you did know what I was saying. You are a huge supporter of big authoritarian government.

How is removing special carve outs for social media authoritarian???

I'm beginning to think you don't know what that word means.

There is no special carve outs. You want to create special restrictions on them.

Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230.

Get educated

Feeble excuse. This whole issue is about punishing companies who won't support Trump. Fuck that.

Wrong, asshole. It's about freedom of speech. These companies are censoring Trump. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously just a Trump hating douche

You claim to be a libertarian and don't even understand the basic concept of liberty. Liberty doesn't mean you can force others to accommodate you. Freedom of speech means the government can't silence you. It doesn't mean that you can force Facebook to host your idiocy.

The government is protecting Google and Facebook and twitter, moron. You continually ignore that fact.

You're a fucking douche and you aren't a libertarian. No libertarian would prefer those commies Biden and Harris over Trump. It simply isn't possible.

So again.........are you arguing for sites like this to approve every single post before they get posted? Is this what "libertarians" want?

 

[pknopp]

Now you are arguing for authoritarian big government actions to address this still?

Protecting every Americans first amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS is the antithesis of authoritarian.

You need to take a class on the 1st Amendment and stop being a hypocrite on your support for big authoritarian governments.

No, the internet needs to be regulated under the FCC as a public square because THATS WHAT IT IS.

See, you did know what I was saying. You are a huge supporter of big authoritarian government.

How is removing special carve outs for social media authoritarian???

I'm beginning to think you don't know what that word means.

There is no special carve outs. You want to create special restrictions on them.

Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230.

Get educated

Feeble excuse. This whole issue is about punishing companies who won't support Trump. Fuck that.

Wrong, asshole. It's about freedom of speech. These companies are censoring Trump. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously just a Trump hating douche

Being a Libertarian means you do not dictate how others run their companies.

Fine. The cancel Rule 230. How can you douchebags be opposed to stopping government intereference in the market when you claim to support the free market?

You didn't answer my question. Do you want this site to have to approve every post before they are posted?

Somehow they had political bulletin boards before rule 230. I know because I used to post on them.

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason. You don't want people responsible for themselves. It doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Without 230 we would have far, far, far more restrictions on speech than now.

 

[JoeB131]

Find a video by Alex Jones.

You said "Republicans", not Alex Jones. Alex Jones needs to be dragged out behind an alley and have the shit beaten out of him.

 

[bripat9643]

Find a video by Alex Jones.

You said "Republicans", not Alex Jones. Alex Jones needs to be dragged out behind an alley and have the shit beaten out of him.

Alex Jones is a Republican, fool.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt says he can't defend his PROG-views so he'll sport a cartoon instead. Idiocracy is here

I don't have Liberal Views. Well, not many anyway. But I do have Progressive Conservative views and a lot of them. And I don't feel the need to defend common sense. You, on the other hand, repeat crap that originated from Conspiracy Sites and Rumps mouth. And you can't defend that without spewing more crap from either Conspiracy Sites or crap from Rumps mouth. It's over. Move on.

 

[miketx]

The purveyors of 4 years of fake news are now the arbiters of real news.

Unreal

here is a fitting message.

You idiots spent 4 years chasing the russian boogeyman/Trump connection based on NO EVIDENCE.
Meanwhile REAL NEWS based on REAL EVIDENCE about the Biden family was dismissed as fake.

YOU
HAVE
NO
CREDIBILITY

And you have no President or standing or Party other than the Party of the Rump and the John Birch Society. I think I like my odds better.

turdbabble shilleryblubbering.

 

[miketx]

Daryl Hunt says he can't defend his PROG-views so he'll sport a cartoon instead. Idiocracy is here

I don't have Liberal Views. Well, not many anyway. But I do have Progressive Conservative views and a lot of them. And I don't feel the need to defend common sense. You, on the other hand, repeat crap that originated from Conspiracy Sites and Rumps mouth. And you can't defend that without spewing more crap from either Conspiracy Sites or crap from Rumps mouth. It's over. Move on.

Progressive=fag

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt says he can't defend his PROG-views so he'll sport a cartoon instead. Idiocracy is here

I don't have Liberal Views. Well, not many anyway. But I do have Progressive Conservative views and a lot of them. And I don't feel the need to defend common sense. You, on the other hand, repeat crap that originated from Conspiracy Sites and Rumps mouth. And you can't defend that without spewing more crap from either Conspiracy Sites or crap from Rumps mouth. It's over. Move on.

Progressive=fag

Are you saying that Lincoln was a Fag? Are you saying that Teddy R was a Fag. How about Eisenhower being a fag? These 3 had more to building this nation as a sea to shining sea nation than all the other Presidents put together. And 2 of those 3 did more for civil rights than all Presidents put together. If that is what it takes to be a fag, fine. You can call me a Fag and I'll do more for this nation than all of you Party of the Rumpers (JBSers) all put together.

 

[bripat9643]

Daryl Hunt says he can't defend his PROG-views so he'll sport a cartoon instead. Idiocracy is here

I don't have Liberal Views. Well, not many anyway. But I do have Progressive Conservative views and a lot of them. And I don't feel the need to defend common sense. You, on the other hand, repeat crap that originated from Conspiracy Sites and Rumps mouth. And you can't defend that without spewing more crap from either Conspiracy Sites or crap from Rumps mouth. It's over. Move on.

I've never seen you post anything but leftwing opinions.

Who are you trying to kid? The term "progressive conservative" is any oxymoron, moron.

You need to defend your incessant spew of pure idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

Daryl Hunt says he can't defend his PROG-views so he'll sport a cartoon instead. Idiocracy is here

I don't have Liberal Views. Well, not many anyway. But I do have Progressive Conservative views and a lot of them. And I don't feel the need to defend common sense. You, on the other hand, repeat crap that originated from Conspiracy Sites and Rumps mouth. And you can't defend that without spewing more crap from either Conspiracy Sites or crap from Rumps mouth. It's over. Move on.

Progressive=fag

Are you saying that Lincoln was a Fag? Are you saying that Teddy R was a Fag. How about Eisenhower being a fag? These 3 had more to building this nation as a sea to shining sea nation than all the other Presidents put together. And 2 of those 3 did more for civil rights than all Presidents put together. If that is what it takes to be a fag, fine. You can call me a Fag and I'll do more for this nation than all of you Party of the Rumpers (JBSers) all put together.

Those three had more to do with destroying this nation than anything else.

 

[dblack]

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason.

Not that odd. The "reason" is petty retribution. Trump is butthurt at companies that call him out as a liar and a troll, and wants to punish them. His followers get off on that kind of authoritarian bullying.

 

[dblack]

I don't have Liberal Views. Well, not many anyway. But I do have Progressive Conservative views and a lot of them.

You can say that again. Classic liberalism is, essentially, what we now call libertarianism. Both today's Progressives and Conservatives are authoritarian and statist.

 

[bripat9643]

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason.

Not that odd. The "reason" is petty retribution. Trump is butthurt at companies that call him out as a liar and a troll, and wants to punish them. His followers get off on that kind of authoritarian bullying.

Calling out Trump as a liar and a troll is not their proper function, asshole. According to Rule 230, they are supposed to be nuetral platforms. They are hardly nuetral. They're fucking Nazi propaganda organs.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have Liberal Views. Well, not many anyway. But I do have Progressive Conservative views and a lot of them.

You can say that again. Classic liberalism is, essentially, what we now call libertarianism. Both today's Progressives and Conservatives are authoritarian and statist.

Progressives are far more autoritarian than conservatives. So-called "progressives" support censorship and targeting disfavored racial groups. They have storm trooper rioting in the streets and perpetrating mass violence to achieve their political goals. They are fucking Nazis.

 

[pknopp]

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason.

Not that odd. The "reason" is petty retribution. Trump is butthurt at companies that call him out as a liar and a troll, and wants to punish them. His followers get off on that kind of authoritarian bullying.

Calling out Trump as a liar and a troll is not their proper function, asshole. According to Rule 230, they are supposed to be nuetral platforms. They are hardly nuetral. They're fucking Nazi propaganda organs.

Nowhere does it state they have to be neutral. It simply states that a website is not responsible for what people post there.

 

[bripat9643]

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason.

Not that odd. The "reason" is petty retribution. Trump is butthurt at companies that call him out as a liar and a troll, and wants to punish them. His followers get off on that kind of authoritarian bullying.

Calling out Trump as a liar and a troll is not their proper function, asshole. According to Rule 230, they are supposed to be nuetral platforms. They are hardly nuetral. They're fucking Nazi propaganda organs.

Nowhere does it state they have to be neutral. It simply states that a website is not responsible for what people post there.

They are supplosed to be "platforms," which means they don't censor for content, moron.

 

[pknopp]

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason.

Not that odd. The "reason" is petty retribution. Trump is butthurt at companies that call him out as a liar and a troll, and wants to punish them. His followers get off on that kind of authoritarian bullying.

Calling out Trump as a liar and a troll is not their proper function, asshole. According to Rule 230, they are supposed to be nuetral platforms. They are hardly nuetral. They're fucking Nazi propaganda organs.

Nowhere does it state they have to be neutral. It simply states that a website is not responsible for what people post there.

They are supplosed to be "platforms," which means they don't censor for content, moron.

That's your imaginary reading of the law. Nowhere does it state that. Nearly every single site censors. Those that didn't wouldn't last long.

 

[bripat9643]

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason.

Not that odd. The "reason" is petty retribution. Trump is butthurt at companies that call him out as a liar and a troll, and wants to punish them. His followers get off on that kind of authoritarian bullying.

Calling out Trump as a liar and a troll is not their proper function, asshole. According to Rule 230, they are supposed to be nuetral platforms. They are hardly nuetral. They're fucking Nazi propaganda organs.

Nowhere does it state they have to be neutral. It simply states that a website is not responsible for what people post there.

They are supplosed to be "platforms," which means they don't censor for content, moron.

That's your imaginary reading of the law. Nowhere does it state that. Nearly every single site censors. Those that didn't wouldn't last long.

And they can be sued.

It does say that. In one place it defines what a platform is, and then Section 230 gives them protect from lawsuits.

 

[pknopp]

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason.

Not that odd. The "reason" is petty retribution. Trump is butthurt at companies that call him out as a liar and a troll, and wants to punish them. His followers get off on that kind of authoritarian bullying.

Calling out Trump as a liar and a troll is not their proper function, asshole. According to Rule 230, they are supposed to be nuetral platforms. They are hardly nuetral. They're fucking Nazi propaganda organs.

Nowhere does it state they have to be neutral. It simply states that a website is not responsible for what people post there.

They are supplosed to be "platforms," which means they don't censor for content, moron.

That's your imaginary reading of the law. Nowhere does it state that. Nearly every single site censors. Those that didn't wouldn't last long.

And they can be sued.

It does say that. In one place it defines what a platform is, and then Section 230 gives them protect from lawsuits.

We are posting on a platform. They censor.

 

[bripat9643]

Somehow people weren't as spastic as they are today. All 230 does is say that if an individual posts something on the internet on a site owned by others, those others are not liable. You want them to be for some odd reason.

Not that odd. The "reason" is petty retribution. Trump is butthurt at companies that call him out as a liar and a troll, and wants to punish them. His followers get off on that kind of authoritarian bullying.

Calling out Trump as a liar and a troll is not their proper function, asshole. According to Rule 230, they are supposed to be nuetral platforms. They are hardly nuetral. They're fucking Nazi propaganda organs.

Nowhere does it state they have to be neutral. It simply states that a website is not responsible for what people post there.

They are supplosed to be "platforms," which means they don't censor for content, moron.

That's your imaginary reading of the law. Nowhere does it state that. Nearly every single site censors. Those that didn't wouldn't last long.

And they can be sued.

It does say that. In one place it defines what a platform is, and then Section 230 gives them protect from lawsuits.

We are posting on a platform. They censor.

No for content, moron.