The government is now an owned and operated subsidiary of Monster Tech."
Will you learn? Will you finally understand that when you get enough power, the lines between "private" and "public" become so blurred as to be nonexistent?
What the hell are you going on about? Do you want Jim Robinson held accountable for everything that gets posted on FR? This is a WIN for free speech and Web forums, not a loss.
My main issue with this is : if they can’t be held liable they shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose what customers say either - or they should at least have to hire outside to make the decision if they are getting off the hook.
/s
I grabbed some of your names from previous discussions on similar subjects to this. I do not have, nor do I intend to create a "ping" list. This is a one time thing for this particular bit of news that I thought was newsworthy to people interested in the subject of Big Tech suppressing public speech.
Participate or not as is your preference.
Muh Private Monopolistic Overlords: Google Schemed To Block Breitbart from Making Money on Ads
""THE GOOD CENSOR" An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the "American tradition" of free speech on the internet is no longer viable. Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a �blip� in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.""But the 85-page briefing, titled "The Good Censor," admits that Google and other tech platforms now "control the majority of online conversations" and have undertaken a "shift towards censorship" in response to unwelcome political events around the world."
That's news to me that Goodlatte is an employee of Google.
And yet he says Use of Antitrust Laws 'Needs to Be Reviewed'
"It's clear that companies like Google are doing more to edit the content that appears on their platform, making them more hands-on. If it were just, 'here's out platform, put whatever you want on it,' that's totally free speech. But if it's not free speech, why do they get a free pass on protection against libel, for example?" he asked, urging Americans to view the questions and answers from the hearing.
This is a much better written article than that blog that makes a specious claim regarding Goodlatte: How The New NAFTA Trade Deal Lets Big Tech Squelch Conservative Speech
It should be one way or the other.
If they are publishers, they’re liable for what they allow to remain on the site. This means Twitter and Facebook can be sued for tolerating liberals calling for actual violence against conservatives.
If they are neutral platforms, then they are not liable for content created by users - but they cannot CENSOR as well.
From what I see, it looks like this treaty provision lets them have their cake and eat it too, censoring to their heart’s delight while not being liable for the liberal hate speech that remains.
Lots of bad stuff snuck into this replacement of NAFTA.
Kushner strikes again.
