You just said this "Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply " Emphasis on the word "ought". And you responded to someone bringing up other laws by s

You just said this "Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply " Emphasis on the word "ought". And you responded to someone bringing up other laws by saying this "to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation ". Which nobody said. Instead, the other person was directly answering your question, of which specific laws "ought" be applied to social media companies. The implication being, that they do not currently apply now, but should, by changing the law such that they do. > at least one contrary law would need to be repealed You used the word ought. That was your premise. And someone answered your question of what ought happen. So, the implication, is that other contrary law, also ought be changed. I am not sure why this always happens in these types of conversations. People say X is bad, and then someone else comes in and says "Well actually, X is totally legal!". Nobody here said anything about it being illegal. Instead we said that X is bad. And the implication being that we want something to change, such that the bad thing stops. Saying X is legal, is just an end run around, to ignore the original point that was brought up, by talking about the legality, when nobody brought up was is legal in the first place. Yeah, we knows the bad thing is legal. Thats why it is happening. Thats why we are complaining about it. Because it is legal, and happening, and we don't want it to happen, and we want to figure out a way to make it not happen. That why, in my original comment I said that we should "extend" common carrier laws. "Extend" means change. It means that I already know that common carriers laws don't apply, and I want them to apply. By changing those laws. Like, my god. This always happens, and the conversations are so stupid.