I’m on Gab, not Twitter. Twitter is losing $1 billion a year, and it’s going to get worse.
Of course they do. Regulation is making the pharmaceutical industry billions. Ditto the hospital industry.
Interesting - I’ll have to think about that.
Since big tech can remove and add my comments however they want, how could any of these comments have valid standing to characterize ANYONE?
You cannot have it both ways but big tech is seeking to have it both ways, to obtain immunity in being characterized in favor of characterizing others with a patch of pretend promotion of genuine content in order for it to pass court muster to persecute posters.
“Gab started mailing us physical checks to keep the site online.”
Never mailed a check with my name on it for political purposes. I just go to MOney Mart and get a money order. It’s mostly “Trump PAC c/o N. Pelosi (address of the old hag)” and I’m good..
I’d say he understands the situation pretty clearly.
The repeal of 230 section would be great if done properly. By Donald Trump e.g.
Nowadays, we can expect only the Democratic version of this. And it looks like that would be worse than nothing.
I am with the Gab.
It’s known as regulatory capture. The incumbents plead with the government to regulate their industry to stifle the entry of competitors, although the regulation is ostensibly to “protect the public.” Regulation raises the cost of entry. You need a legal staff that you cannot amortize over a small customer base.
Gab only exists because Twitter and Facebook have driven people away, using Section 230 as a pretext. Fix Twitter and Facebook, and Gab has no reason to exist. So it’s within Gab’s own selfish motives to see that Facebook and Twitter aren’t fixed. Describing ridding the world of Section 230 as “regulation” is shallow, twisted sophistry.
Section 230 isn’t a controversy because Twitter and Facebook have been hiding behind it to allow all manner of hate-speech and propagation of violence to prosper, but because they have been acting as unofficial (and therefore unaccountable) agents of a corrupt government in its destruction of political discourse.
Network Effect means Gab is forever banished to a niche corner of the market, but a safe one that is plenty large enough for Gan to expand into. It also means that the forces which explain why Twitter and Facebook are so hate-filled against conservative will remain in place so long as they are simultaneously free to censor conservatives, but also free to promote every form of anti-conservative hate that could possibly exist.
I don’t understand, however, why no-one has attempted to strip Facebook and Twitter of Section 230 by arguing that their selective censorships amounts to them having their own voice. Perhaps the best solution is to reassert that Section 230 protections are offered only when the refusal to censor results in an open political discourse.
"We don't have time for anti-trust, we don't have time for regulations and I'm not fond of regulations anyway. We needed to act big and we did. I encourage the marketplace to fill the void. Thank you."
The big companies aren’t able to keep up with moderating properly and thoroughly. They’d be brought down in the courts with their lopsided beliefs. And “AI” isn’t what it’s exaggerated to be.
President Trump knew what he was talking about as per his advisors.
fascinating word,
panopticon
“Section 230 doesn’t apply to Big Tech’s editorializing. The First Amendment does.”
It does???????????
Read later.
https://gab.com/a/posts/105736252805315426
