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 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.
To further add, they used to say "build your own platform if you don't like it".
Andrew Torba did and they did everything to collude and conspire to make sure he couldn't succeed. Banning the app from the app stores, cancelling his PayPal and even his personal credit cards, de-listing the site in Google - even text messages with Gab in the url often get removed on send.
Not to mention all the defamation that it is an "alt right" platform so if you dare leave Twitter and go there instead you are obviously a Nazi and will be treated as such.
It's fucking disgusting. This is racketeering never mind violating Section 230.