Congress did that to allow platforms to delete obscene material, mainly pornography. Are you really seeking to undo that - and force websites to allow porn? How conservative of you.
Is your “conservative” opinion that they should be granted special legal protection not available to all other broadcasters and publishers?
I believe in free markets. Apparently you don't.
I believe in free markets. Apparently you don’t.
No, you don’t. We don’t have a free market now. Big Tech is dominated by politically active oligarchs no different than the Robber barons. If you did believe in free markets you’d notice that.
Congress did that to allow platforms to delete obscene material, mainly pornography. Are you really seeking to undo that - and force websites to allow porn? How conservative of you.
Wow. Nice straw man you built there.
So lets understand how far your belief goes. Should laws which require landlords to rent to people without consideration of their race or religion be repealed?
I think we all do, but you are fooling yourself if you think this is a "free market."
“Congress did that to allow platforms to delete obscene material, mainly pornography. “
Utterly laughable. The internet is saturated with free porn. The legal protection was meant so that someone could not sue Google for harmful things their servers routed people to, as in things that would otherwise be torts.
Verizon cannot be sued because a person makes a threatening phone call or text to someone. THAT is the intent for tech protection.
Newspapers and other media does not get this protection. If they allow a letter to the editor, or a classified ad slandering or defaming, they can and will be sued. The example of this is the Covington boys.
Websites could easily remove porn without legal protection even with them assuming editorial control. I don’t see a lot of porn on the commercials for FOX news or in the local newspaper. Somehow they manage to get by just fine.
But keep pretending you are conservative sport.
YouTube, Facebook, etc., right now enjoy legal protections by claiming they are not "publishers." Meanwhile, they are behaving as publishers by engaging directly with viewpoint censorship. If they want to do that, then such protections should be stripped from them, which will result, of course, in their complete obliteration from lawsuits. Such is the cost of playing leftist games.