And all (aside retail) are banned from simply discriminating for non-economic reasons.

All things the government is involved in, monitors, and uses to accuse me of terrorism and throw me in jail or put me on a drone hitlist

@Grenade123 And when his money runs out? He hasn't seemed too effective.

`So you think that they should just ban James Woods.` If James Woods acts in a way that without a shadow of a doubt violates the platforms terms of services I don't think alot of people would argue against. Only problem is the TOS are too vague for interpreation, selectively enforced and most times users are punished without a crime. If Twitter equally enforced their TOS they'd have maybe half of the daily active users tomorrow

Very good options: get kicked off a platform and stop having socialist yell at me, or get drone strikes.

"Drone strikes" has to be the slippery slope of the year.

Perhaps we should remove 230 so James woods can sue for their vauge terms

Not an argument Grenade.

Removing 230 is on the table.

Is it? Need I go find the list of America citizens Obama had killed for no reason? And Trump hasn't stopped?

But I'm not sure it would be enough. I think it would open up for the SPLC and well-heeled NGOs to just sue people they don't like to oblivion.

I guess Snowfen was a lair and they have none of those programs right?

We're talking about social media and internet censorship. Not military action.

Bullshit, all government action is military action

And you think somehow not regulating tech censorship somehow removes the NSA monitoring programs?

It won't. Law enforcement will do what it wants regardless.

Removing 230 means they have to stop banning oland editing or be open to be sued into oblivion

Because protection for platform was around to protect libraries before social media

See, you're right, but I also see it backfiring and really helping the really well-heeled organizations at the expense of everyone else.

Infact, 230 was enacted to protect platform censorship from lawsuit

Section 230 would need explicit reform. Something closer to common carrier, which is what I'm arguing.

You're just saying "repeal 230 and no regulation because it's governmnet"

You and Beemann...

No, because it is a bad law

I have less of a headache banging on an anvil. Atleast the anvil can bend and realize when it's wrong.

I'm agreeing. I'm saying "repeal" isn't enough.

A company wanted to censor curse words but not he considered a publisher.

Yes, I've seen your video.

230 was the only part of the entirely shit law to follow

Are you reading what I'm saying?

Can you quote exactly what 230 says

Is this for me or Grenade?

Either or

@SantaSoc not ATM. Busy.

Here's the law. I don't have it memorized.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

@pratel we have free speech because the Constitution limits government power, not grows it.

Free speech is a principle as well as a legal doctrine.

So reading that law, how does it habe a negative impact?

Have*

According to Grenade (we've had this argument before), it essentially allows explicit curation and provides protection from what users post anyway.

de facto allowing tech to have it's cake (perform censorship) and eat it too (be immune from lawsuits based on what people post).