[cuban leaf]

I’ve been a member of quite a few forums since the turn of the century. I’m very careful not to break site rules and have always had an amicable relationship with mods.

I’ve been banned from at least four sites - so far - since the lockdown started. No, I didn’t violate the rules, but I’ve made the Karens go nuts, violating the rules all over the place. At the end of the day, it’s just easier to get rid of one guy than ban most of the site, so that’s what they do.

We are living in interesting times.

[libertylover]

The best argument against prescribing the drug should be that it is unproven as a treatment for this specific illness, but frankly, that’s not a very good argument because the anecdotal evidence and early studies suggested otherwise.

Most of the "argument" against prescribing the drug can be summarized into: "Let's hate Trump".

[Brilliant]

Twitter reads every tweet Trump writes and discusses it internally to determine how they are going to respond to it. When Biden or some other Democrat tweets they have no review process at all.

[AndyTheBear]

The very largest social media platforms have become de facto public squares for dialog. For example twitter, facebook, and youtube. While many smaller platforms have become de facto private clubs of like minded individuals. Such as free republic, democratic underground, and so on.

All of them are currently governed under section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Which allows the private entity to censor the content however they wish...including politically. In addition it protects the private entity for being liable for the content of comments and posts of users with the exception of some responsibility to prevent copyright violations and criminal activity.

In my opinion, this needs to change for the platforms which are de facto pulic squares. Political comments should not be allowed to be censored on such platforms. Although the company running the platform is private, they essentially occupy public land. For example, if FaceBook dissapeared per some magic wand, some other company would become the next FaceBook in short order. Same for Twitter. But there is not enough room for two FaceBooks and two Twitters etc. They are occupying a kind of space/niche/position that only one company can occupy. Kudos to them for getting there first. And I am all for them taking advantage of it as businesses. But I draw the line at them occupying such a public space and using it to undermine political dialog. Its as if in the time of the founders one company was able to control all the printing presses and make sure only opinions they agreed with could be in print. This was not possible then, but is now. Thus Freedom of the Press needs to be extended to cover our right to make posts and comments that the owners of de facto public square platforms don't like.

[Buffalo Bob]

you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre

Actually you can yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, so long as there is a fire.