Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
IMO there is nothing wrong with Section 230. What is wrong is there is no regulatory body FOR Section 230. It say's companies who are internet platforms can't engage in editorial actions. But its a toothless provision. There is no punishment if they DO engage in editorializing and there is no assigned regulatory body to determine if they are or are not doing that. I hate adding another layer of bureaucracy to things, but another one needs to be added, either in the FCC or the FTC that exists specifically for policing section 230. One that is given the authority to bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States, levy fines, or otherwise threaten to do both when a company steps too far out of line. Much like how there are anti-consumer practices, or employee boards in these agencies.

This will be beneficial for small time forums because they would be too small to even garner notice by such agencies. It would exist solely to hunt big game.
 
Any law requiring an external collective body to verify whenether the law in question is applicable to each specific case is broken right out of the gate.
 
Why not make a "deal" with some busted Methxican who doesn't speak English? Pay him ton in advance for a suprise shooting spree in Twitter HQ with a promise of the most luxurious prison sentence you can get and keep your word and dumbass journalists can't understand him during interviews without your approved translator?

Trump the Nintendo64d Underwater Basketweaving dealmaster and all that.
 
1590951871984.png

 
kuniqsX said:
@Null isn't evil! It's his advisors who are!
Click to expand...
I could see him shutting down, his payment processors keep getting fucked, and if the last thread is anything to go by, he mentioned his key method of funding being a $50k line of credit. When your business is living off credit and has no liquidity or cash inflows, that's trouble. And on the other end the site's growing in use? Makes sense. Granted, from what he says, he does do some contract work, but he shouldn't have to slave away on fiverr so the site stays open. Not fair.
 
AnOminous said:
About what I'd think of amending the First Amendment to "improve it." I.e. keep your filthy hands off it motherfucker.
Click to expand...

How did you convince yourself that this narrow statutory immunity is on par with a Constitutional right?
 
#KillAllPedos said:
How did you convince yourself that this narrow statutory immunity is on par with a Constitutional right?
Click to expand...

I didn't "convince myself." I saw it obviously protecting the right in a way nothing else could. I am hardly the only person to call it "the First Amendment of the Internet." This is not some fanatical nonsense I conjured up out of nowhere. My position on Section 230 is little different than that of Eugene Volokh, one of the preeminent First Amendment scholars in the country.

I'm not sure why you would think I needed to "convince myself" of something that is self-evidently obvious to me. In short, suck my dick. Your question is fucking dumb because I did not have to "convince myself" of fucking anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom