NetChoice v. Paxton (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:23:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  NetChoice v. Paxton (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: NetChoice v. Paxton  (Read 449 times)
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


« on: May 13, 2022, 04:53:02 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them
Section 230 being removed is a road to a way more controlled internet and would accomplish the opposite of what you intend. Section 230 being gone would be WORSE than the status quo.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2022, 04:57:57 PM »

Either social media companies should have to abide by the first amendment OR they should have section 230 protections removed from them
Section 230 being removed is a road to a way more controlled internet and would accomplish the opposite of what intend. Section 230 being gone would be WORSE than the status quo.

Sure but social media companies who censor the way twitter has become cannot reasonably say they aren't responsible for what is posted on their platforms.


Agree to disagree on that, but - I'd argue companies will not be as hurt if Section 230 is removed.
It will be users who suffer the most, bar none.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.