@Abel he did i memba dat and trump cant ban people so why is twatter allowed to ? And dont give me its their platform bs

It's not just "a platform" when there's literally no serious competition

It's the *only* platform

IMO, no one should be banned unless they post something actually illegal.

💯 agree ^

I like exclusivity of smart people.

So what happens if I want to start a twitter for Christian fundamentalist. It's designed to be a bubble, I don't want any disagreement to happen on my site. Am I allowed to ban ppl? Where dose your rule stand with freedom of association?

But that should be for more specific ENCLAVES.

To ban someone from the entire service is a little ridiculous.

It's the equivalent of banning someone from THE FORMAT of all forums.

That's how big these services are now.

They're the equivalent of every forum in the world combining into a giant ultra-forum.

Twitter wants to be known as a public utility.

The second it said that, it should've relinquished its rights to ban whoever they wanted.

And regulating them means regulating any start ups to the same degree. It could very well cement them as the public square. The only people that want that are Big Tech and the government.

Telling you, repeal section 230

II would much rather see these sites fall by their own hand so the next sites to rise don't make the same mistake. YT and Twitter could very easily say that they need more gov hand outs to protect the service. This is not good for compation.

@Poppy Rider if you claim to be a piblic square you are a public square, if you want to create a platform for christians then your platform is not really public

So if you create legislation following those guidelines, all any of the companies has to do is stop calling themselves a public square, which would make it pointless.

Im fine with that then they can reap the benefits of not being a public square like not recieving tax dollars

Unless im misinformed on this

If they are receiving tax dollars the I would argue that stop regardless.

@Grenade123 Why do you think repealing 230 is a good idea?

It means they need to stop moderating their platform or be treated as a publisher and therefore liable for what is said.

Basically it makes Twitter liable for slander rather than the person saying it.

Etc

230 protects them from being liable.

If that happens everyone would get banned @Grenade123

And Twitter would be dead

If you take it away it means the sites are responceable for what is said.

No, they are only responsible IF they moderate

Ok that makes sense ^

So if they take one thing down they are no longer protected by the 230?

Basically, if they moderate, they are a publisher, if not they are like a library

Im fine with this then ^

So how would taking the protection away be helpful?

However, banning might still be protected, not sure exactly.

But what about moderating illegal content

And would users be able to block

That would be the governments job to have it taken down

Or they moderate, and are open to lawsuits