>Gab is a business and, as such, is not required to adhere to the first amendment. Why shouldn't businesses be required to adhere to the First Amendment if the

>Gab is a business and, as such, is not required to adhere to the first amendment. Why shouldn't businesses be required to adhere to the First Amendment if they function as the modern public square? The only reason they get out of that requirement is Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, a law that exists to make sure that websites such as Facebook can't be held liable for how they moderate their site provided its content remains within US law. This is the definition of privatizing gains, socializing losses. >First they came for the [people most don't like], then they came for the [progressively larger fractions of the population] This is why we keep the Overton window focused on scoundrels, like we are now. It never stops just with them.