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

[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.

No for content, moron.

Of course they do.

 

[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.

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.

So-called "conservatives" and "libertarians" demanding that the state crack down on social media companies is pure hypocrisy. But it's no less hypocritical than all the liberals who are suddenly concerned about the rights of businesses - when a year ago they were chanting "bake the cake".

 

[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.

Of course they do.

What content do 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.

So-called "conservatives" and "libertarians" demanding that the state crack down on social media companies is pure hypocrisy. But it's no less hypocritical than all the liberals who are suddenly concerned about the rights of businesses - when a year ago they were chanting "bake the cake".

You claiming to be a libertarian who defends these Nazilike social media companies is a joke. Do you actually defends a company that censors the president of the United States?

 

[dblack]

Do you actually defends a company that censors the president of the United States?

I defend their right to do so, you bet. Do you think a president should have some kind of special privilege in that regard?

 

[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.

So-called "conservatives" and "libertarians" demanding that the state crack down on social media companies is pure hypocrisy. But it's no less hypocritical than all the liberals who are suddenly concerned about the rights of businesses - when a year ago they were chanting "bake the cake".

Libertarians aren't demanding it. There has been a lot of hypocrisy around the cake thing. Hardly anyone has any principles. It's like I've been saying with most. It's a cult.

 

[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.

No for content, moron.

Of course they do.

What content do they censor?

Anytime they shut a thread down or delete a post.

 

[JoeB131]

Alex Jones is a Republican, fool.

Alex Jones is a Fool, Fool.

Republicans have denounced him.

GOP lawmaker regrets appearing on Alex Jones’s radio show

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday said he regrets his appearance on a radio show hosted by Infowars founder Alex Jones.“I would not go back on Alex Jones’s show,” Gaetz told Hill.TV co-hosts Bu…

thehill.com

 

[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.

Of course they do.

What content do they censor?

Anytime they shut a thread down or delete a post.

Nope. They shut don threads for reason that have nothing to do with your political views. Deleting posts for violating the law is not censorship, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Alex Jones is a Republican, fool.

Alex Jones is a Fool, Fool.

Republicans have denounced him.

GOP lawmaker regrets appearing on Alex Jones’s radio show

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday said he regrets his appearance on a radio show hosted by Infowars founder Alex Jones.“I would not go back on Alex Jones’s show,” Gaetz told Hill.TV co-hosts Bu…

thehill.com

have they? Please quote one.