TRUMP v ZUCKERBURG
This is the BEST read of the week! Fakebook is screwed! 😂🤣
Link below...👇👇👇👇
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (78)
sorted by:
You are wrong here. Facebook and Twitter et al are publicly traded companies and they were set up as PLATFORMS, to be the modern "public square". This is why they have protections under 230 so they cannot be liable for what people say providing it is legal.
They HAVE to allow all voices to be heard if it's legal, and yet there are clearly illegal tweets on there which they don't remove while silencing the voices of of perfectly legal speech. Not just politics of course, they censored Doctors talking about Ivermectin or vaccine damage.
While publishers can of course decide what they allow to be published they haven't yet been designated so, and are still under 'platform' 230 protection. So they can be sued under that designation.
There is also the fact that they conspired with other to silence people and that I think would come under racketeering/RICO.
Phone companies cannot just cut off your service if they don't like your conversations or who you call even though they too are private companies.
Anyone who has stock in Facebook and Twitter should also sue for damaging their stock values imo.
Again, being it is irrelevant to their status as a private company. Would you except that argument if the left government tried to tell oil companies who they could and could not sell to, because they are publicly traded companies?
The fact that these companies are too big is indeed a problem and should be addressed under anti-trust and antimonopoly rules but it is irrelevant to their authority and rights as a private company.
Has a private company in America they have rules which they are public about and open with and if you break them they are removed.
The government should not be dictating to private companies who they can and cannot serve. you don’t get to only have conservative values when it is convenient and affects the left.
You are completely missing the point. They are designated as PLATFORMS, the 'Public Square' that is why they have protections under Section 230 so unlike publishers they are not liable for what anyone says on their platform. But that means they must allow all voices to be heard if it is legal speech.
If they want to be a publisher then and only then could they silence who they want. and be legally liable for whatever is published. Until that day comes they are a platform and must allow all voices to be heard. You don't get to pick and choose who speaks in the public town square. Everybody has a voice, it's up to people whether they want to listen to it.
When you are conspiring against the President of The United States to stop him conversing with the citizens then that is a HUGE problem. (If it turns out Zuckerberg and Dorsey et al take their orders from China to silence the President then you have a whole other can of worms and an Act of War.)
Until they get re-designated as a Publisher and lose their protection under section 230, then they can be sued for violating their original and existing Platform designation.
This is correct.
Section 230 Protects Platform not publishers.
When Trump wins this case, Section 230 is over.
“Merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."
SCOTUS Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump appointee.
That's a bit disingenuous, because of course they are not being transformed into "state entities" by being held to Section 230. The point, which you keep ducking, is that they got Section 230 protection from any liability ONLY because they give a voice to EVERYONE as a modern day public square. If it is legal, they can speak it.
If they are allowing everyone to speak they cannot be held liable for what people are saying, that is down to the individual who says something which may be libelous etc. If however they start to edit content and only publish what they see fit, they no longer have the protections under Section 230 because they are no longer a PLATFORM allowing everyone to speak without favor. They have become a PUBLISHER and are liable for everything they allow to be published.
As they are still have protection under Section 230 they have violated that.
Kavanaugh clearly doesn't know what he is talking about here if he is trying to conflate a platform, with all it's protections, now acting like a publisher which doesn't have protections, and pretending that would make them "state entities".
Do you work for Facebook or Twitter as you seem awfully concerned about letting them have their cake while eating it.
They are either a PUBLISHER or a PLATFORM. They cannot get the protection under one banner while simultaneously acting like the other.
Can governments dictate to private companies who they can and cannot censor?
The point is that facebook is operating as an agent for the government. Your private company argument is not relevant.
If you can actually prove they are operating as an agent of the government, then you might have a weak argument. But you can’t base a lawsuit on an undemonstrated conspiracy theory.
The second they start curating content and not just being a platform they lose all of their 230 protections. We could have had the same argument about the railroads but we busted those trusts and we are going to bust these ones too.