Replies

You’re new to this subject?

The ‘muh company’ ship sailed long ago.

Section 230 provides that one can either be a platform, which is an e-kiosk where only the lightest control is permitted (explicitly illegal acts, many of which by the way pass unscathed through the big social media platforms); or one can be a publisher, which allows control as one wishes but also liability for content.

This is only natural; if there’s an ad stapled to a telephone pole, it’s not AT&T’s fault if the lawn service advertised thereon is lousy or the religious study group is fake.

Likewise if you’re CNN or Breitbart, if you publish an article full of libel, you can (will) get sued.

Both can apply: If I take my Azure-hosted blog and advertise something illegal, I can get in trouble for it (publisher) but it’s not Microsoft’s fault for renting me a server.

None of this is at all at odds with private enterprise; nobody can be on both sides of the law at once.

These guys long ago became publishers and claim they’re not; they censor and ban us, doctors, even the President, and let riot organizers go and grossly illegal content too.

They’re absolutely “the government” in that they and the Dems collude if not conspire, and both do the will of China; and every time someone *defends* them on the grounds that they’re somehow free (ha) enterprise Xi is grinning.

No, the appropriate law to exercise, if we’re going to hold them accountable rather than force them open, would be criminal suits for every drug buy, illicit sale, underage picture, call for violence or insurrection or riot, and civil lawsuits for everyone who’s been banned, shadowbanned, or otherwise restricted where the cause wasn’t crystal clear and enforced strictly according to the terms of service absolutely equally to all.