Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jibartik
what is the plan or ideas, to nationalize these platforms?
|
We just follow the rules and apply them as they were intended. If you are acting as an open platform for all to speak freely, you are protected under Section 230.
If you censor, edit, editorialize, etc. you aren't protected.
There is no legal penalty for choosing the second option. It just means you are open to all kinds of lawsuits since you are now responsible for everything posted on your website.
It's a good rule when applied as it was intended. Big tech was given the benefit of the doubt, but now that we see they aren't acting in good faith.
They are acting like CNN, therefore can be sued for what's on their website, just like CNN. Social media companies don't have 100% control of their platform, so they won't survive under the section option. Would be a big win for free speech.
Don't like it? Then stay protected under Section 230 by not being a "publisher" and just being a "platform."
Pretty simple. Guess lib brain can comprehend for some.