I agree FB can and shall delete content and eventually ban you should you break TOS.
Maybe my question then should be rephrased: should social media platform be able to delete content and ban people for TOS-compliant speech? I.e. there is nowhere in the TOS that forbids you from saying "abortion is murder" or "Lynch a cracka on your way to work". Yet one will get banned, the other won't, which appears as politically motivated "moderation".
You mention that the Constitution only applies against the government, and as such not on big tech (which are about to get a beating, as a lot of Biden's appointees are Big Tech agents).
The 2nd Amendment applies against the government too, yet the now famous 2008 case DC v. Heller has made precedent the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that is the use of firearms for self-preservation against other citizens close to harming you to death.
What would it take to bring a 1st Amendment case against Big Tech to the Supreme Court to make precedent the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Is there any recourse?
I really despise 'social media' in most forms. I despise the way they incentivize anger and discord. It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict, so they have absolutely no incentive to stop mis-information and anger. So they allow crazy claims to be made, because they know that will trigger more reaction. Sadly, I see the revocation of Sec 230 as the only way to address this; let them be sued. But while the FB's and Twatters of the world will roll with it and eventually adjust (maybe), it will kill off many smaller operations who simply don't have the time or capacity to moderate sufficiently. So maybe an exemption for smaller operators.
To your example, though, 'abortion is murder' would be allowed I would have thought - it's your opinion - while 'lynch a cracka ...' would be banned because it's a clear incitement to violence. Not sure what your point is. If you said, 'kill an abortion doctor', that would be banned, but not 'abortion is murder'.
It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict
Taking a page out of newspapers: war sells paper.
The pure removal of section 230 would be a disaster for this board. I believe I explained the real issue here well-enough. What we'd get with pure removal of section 230 is removal of anything that isn't an MSM outlet, and that's it.
Regarding the "lynch a cracka...", I was remembering this tweet which has since been "deleted" (don't know by whom), after "backlash". It is unclear whether it was "moderated" or not, my guess is not but that's only my guess.
Aside from that, Twitter has a clear anti-white bias in their algorithm, as has been demonstrated by several people on T_D, and others like Candace Owens, who got suspended for tweeting the same thing Sarah Jeong said and only replaced "white" with "Jewish". Twitter said it was "an error". https://www.newswars.com/candace-owens-swaps-white-for-jewish-in-sarah-jeong-tweet-gets-suspended/ Can we agree there is no call to action there?
Twitter also "temporarily" banned the pro-Life movie's account "Unplanned" and reinstated it after backlash...
This is scary: how many are banned for wrongthink that we don't hear about?
I agree FB can and shall delete content and eventually ban you should you break TOS.
Maybe my question then should be rephrased: should social media platform be able to delete content and ban people for TOS-compliant speech? I.e. there is nowhere in the TOS that forbids you from saying "abortion is murder" or "Lynch a cracka on your way to work". Yet one will get banned, the other won't, which appears as politically motivated "moderation".
You mention that the Constitution only applies against the government, and as such not on big tech (which are about to get a beating, as a lot of Biden's appointees are Big Tech agents).
The 2nd Amendment applies against the government too, yet the now famous 2008 case DC v. Heller has made precedent the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that is the use of firearms for self-preservation against other citizens close to harming you to death.
What would it take to bring a 1st Amendment case against Big Tech to the Supreme Court to make precedent the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Is there any recourse?
I really despise 'social media' in most forms. I despise the way they incentivize anger and discord. It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict, so they have absolutely no incentive to stop mis-information and anger. So they allow crazy claims to be made, because they know that will trigger more reaction. Sadly, I see the revocation of Sec 230 as the only way to address this; let them be sued. But while the FB's and Twatters of the world will roll with it and eventually adjust (maybe), it will kill off many smaller operations who simply don't have the time or capacity to moderate sufficiently. So maybe an exemption for smaller operators. To your example, though, 'abortion is murder' would be allowed I would have thought - it's your opinion - while 'lynch a cracka ...' would be banned because it's a clear incitement to violence. Not sure what your point is. If you said, 'kill an abortion doctor', that would be banned, but not 'abortion is murder'.
Taking a page out of newspapers: war sells paper.
The pure removal of section 230 would be a disaster for this board. I believe I explained the real issue here well-enough. What we'd get with pure removal of section 230 is removal of anything that isn't an MSM outlet, and that's it.
Regarding the "lynch a cracka...", I was remembering this tweet which has since been "deleted" (don't know by whom), after "backlash". It is unclear whether it was "moderated" or not, my guess is not but that's only my guess.
Aside from that, Twitter has a clear anti-white bias in their algorithm, as has been demonstrated by several people on T_D, and others like Candace Owens, who got suspended for tweeting the same thing Sarah Jeong said and only replaced "white" with "Jewish". Twitter said it was "an error". https://www.newswars.com/candace-owens-swaps-white-for-jewish-in-sarah-jeong-tweet-gets-suspended/ Can we agree there is no call to action there?
Twitter also "temporarily" banned the pro-Life movie's account "Unplanned" and reinstated it after backlash...
This is scary: how many are banned for wrongthink that we don't hear about?