7 ms·
Like extending free speech laws to these corporations. So banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. can't just
by ttt0 6y ago
Like extending free speech laws to these corporations. So banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. can't just terminate the contract for simply disagreeing with speech that is protected under the First Amendment.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y agoYou're essentially asking the government to compel private businesses to host speech that they disagree with. I don't think that's a viable path.
- ttt0 6y agoSpecifically with the things I listed - yes, I do. In regards to banking it's not even a free market in the first place.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- throwaway19937 6y agoThis change would substantially benefit large providers at the expense of smaller providers. AWS can afford to be sued for hosting a forum or the costs of a boycott for hosting Stormfront - a smaller provider could easily be wiped out. Edited to add the following. Most of this post was wrong. ttt0 is right that section 230 protects providers in the cases I mentioned. TIL about the scope of section 230 provider protection.
- ttt0 6y agoBoycotting a company for doing something its legally obligated to do doesn't make any sense. Regarding lawsuits, section 230 is a thing.