[semimojo]

This is a good article to smoke out the government plants here.

This conspiracy idiocy is so tiresome.

Just remember, Section 230 is what keeps FR possible.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

If a site like FR only prevents the publication of illegal content (e.g. calls to violence, etc.) then it is behaving like the phone company and cannot be sued for any content or subsequent actions resulting from that content.

However, if sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. go beyond just preventing illegal content then they are behaving as publishers and should be suable for any content or subsequent actions resulting from that content.

This is not a simple question of "private companies should be able to do as they please" or "the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private companies".

[BobL]

“Just remember, Section 230 is what keeps FR possible.”

I suspect that the Supreme Court can distinguish between bulk sites with millions or billions of users and ‘boutique’ sites, like FR, and will write their opinion to clearly respect that difference.

In any case, it’s completely INTOLERABLE living in Soviet-Style country where the government controls, either directly or with collusion from big tech, virtually everything that 80% (or more) of the country knows about the rest of the world.

That has to end, and hopefully the Supreme Court will do just that.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Once again, oh so wrong.

I know you are a paid democrat shill but could you please say something truthful once in a while?

Just to make it interesting.