And it's growing.
@stathelle What damage?
@ManAnimal no it wouldnt because its public
The damage that you already see everywhere
Ah you mean the product changing
if public who pays for it?
whats posted on these sites is publicly available
You don't like that it's changed
you are talkin abotu SOCIALIZING social media
Well, clearly a majority of people do.
The consumers have spoken.
They like Facebook and Twitter how it is.
Else they would have moved to Gab.
🙂
only because they ALLOW it to be publically available
God I love free markets.
they are under no such obligation to do so
lol no im not, im talking about reexamining how fb, google, and twitter are skirting their 230 responsibilities @ManAnimal
Not really a free market with the regulations as they are.
but the consequence of such a check would give the gov too much power
section 230 means they have a responsibility to maintain their site as a public platform
And the lacking enforcement of these regulations.
Well, it's obviously a spectrum
Considerably less than most areas tbh.
removing the exception would just remove the service
thats what the MSM wants
you are being played
Which would be awful obviously
no theyd have to just stop editing their site and censoring stuff
why?
>They're doing it in good faith
So it's fine
who cares if it isn't in good faith. you are getting something for FREE.. so is everyone else
not when theres a study that showed google swayed 2.6 million votes to hillary in 2016.
thats not good faith.
you don' t p ay for it so you have no say
That also. @ManAnimal
thats election manipulation
>they're doing it in good faith How do you know that? What if they aren't, but they say they are? @Weez
You have no right to Twitter or Facebook @ManAnimal
I'm not sure if that was sarcastic or not, however good faith isn't what you should really be guiding things on. The nazis though that removing the Jews was good faith.
