3 ms·
The question is what constitutes "refusal to moderate". As far as I can tell, simply calling the election fraudulent is grounds for banning on all the major pla
by dcolkitt 6y ago
The question is what constitutes "refusal to moderate". As far as I can tell, simply calling the election fraudulent is grounds for banning on all the major platforms.
To be clear, I don't believe that position, but at least 30 million Americans do. So now any company that hosts user content without the will or resources to censor the opinions held by one fifth of the electorate, can find its infrastructure turned off at the drop of hat. As a CEO, that would seem like unacceptable TOS to me.
- acdha 6y ago> The question is what constitutes "refusal to moderate". As far as I can tell, simply calling the election fraudulent is grounds for banning on all the major platforms. What makes you think that? They mark those as disputed but haven’t generally touched the ones which aren’t calling for violence. The court filing in question clearly shows that Amazon wanted them to deal with violence, not dishonesty, too.