3 ms·

I meant a legal action, to which 230 would be a defense. Perhaps you should re-read 230 if you think it has relevance outside of legal actions. >Getting compan

I meant a legal action, to which 230 would be a defense. Perhaps you should re-read 230 if you think it has relevance outside of legal actions. >Getting companies to not delete posts if they want to not be held liable for stuff their users posts helps prevent this issue. There's no circumstance here where twitter is being attempted to be made liable for their users posts, so what relevance is 230?

mrguyorama 3y ago
This is just more of the same "Independent entities invoking their legal right to free speech and association in a way I don't like is an impingement on my free speech" bullshit. It's telling they don't understand section 230 since they don't seem to understand 2/3rds of the first amendment either, and that's only a few sentences. If you want to require private companies to publish your content, you have to overturn the first amendment, or at the very least, replace the current supreme court with one open to extreme "interpretation" of the text, but maybe don't then complain when they ban guns.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > they ban guns Or speech, for that matter. There's never a guarantee that an activist court rules in the way a person wants them to rule.