Incorrect. Take GAW for example. While lawful, posts which the mods believe to break the rules are deleted and censored. If GAW was a taxpayer-funded social media site, they wouldn't lawfully be able to do that. It would fall under the "digital public square" doctrine. At least that's how I've come to understand it
I'd rather not be forced to toe the line of arbitrary moderation decisions. As is I get banned from every major discussion platform and group just for wanting whites to survive and thrive while noticing attacks against us.
I understand. The only thing I'm arguing here is Constitutional Law. If this site was a taxpayer-funded social media site they couldn't (lawfully) censor any lawful speech. My arguement is that since Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. all were created and made into what they are today thanks to taxpayer money, they should not be allowed to censor lawful speech. They are not private companies. We The People own them. We should also be the ones who pick who runs them.
Incorrect. Take GAW for example. While lawful, posts which the mods believe to break the rules are deleted and censored. If GAW was a taxpayer-funded social media site, they wouldn't lawfully be able to do that. It would fall under the "digital public square" doctrine. At least that's how I've come to understand it
I'd rather not be forced to toe the line of arbitrary moderation decisions. As is I get banned from every major discussion platform and group just for wanting whites to survive and thrive while noticing attacks against us.
I understand. The only thing I'm arguing here is Constitutional Law. If this site was a taxpayer-funded social media site they couldn't (lawfully) censor any lawful speech. My arguement is that since Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. all were created and made into what they are today thanks to taxpayer money, they should not be allowed to censor lawful speech. They are not private companies. We The People own them. We should also be the ones who pick who runs them.