4 ms·
Huh? You're really confused. Nothing in the 1st Amendment or Section 230 obligates *private parties* from hosting content they don't like! (Actually, they have
by perihelions 2y ago
Huh? You're really confused. Nothing in the 1st Amendment or Section 230 obligates *private parties* from hosting content they don't like! (Actually, they have an affirmative 1st Amendment right not to!) Section 230 immunizes them from certain legal liabilities from the consequences of hosting other people's content; but it obligates nothing.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y agoYes. If you are immune due to that the censors lean on your host, your isp, and your bank.
- crusty 2y agoThe original post does not clearly specify the source of the infringement judgments. Was it a regulatory body contacting a housing provider? Was it the housing provider proactively policing content on their servers? Not clear to me. Commenting on 230 seems reasonable, although I didn't catch what jurisdiction this hoster or site I owner are in. Commenting on censorship power by signature l strong-arming the connoisseur that facilitate access to the internet seems reasonable too. But why reply to the 230 post with it, like you're refuting their issue. This could just be a different thread.