Right back at ya. So many stupid claim with so many irrelevant sources.
-
-
Replying to @_samjack_ @TheBottle8 and
I backed up every claim I made... You haven't with any claim you've made
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @amilh @TheBottle8 and
So haven’t you. Also you provided Section 230 of the CDA but clearly have to understanding of it. This gives the platforms power to remove, suppress, monitor, and etc. But within there terms of service. If they don’t follow there own terms it’s not legal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_samjack_ @amilh and
Prime Example: What happened to facebook.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_samjack_ @TheBottle8 and
Great where in 230 does it say that. Thanks!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @amilh @TheBottle8 and
So you want me to show you a part in 230 so then we can argue the interpretation and whether it would apply or not. Let’s be honest you don’t care about that you just want conservative voices censored.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_samjack_ @amilh and
And if you would like interpretation of the court go read up on the Facebook lawsuit concerning CDA 230.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_samjack_ @TheBottle8 and
Strawman. I want you to prove what you're saying isnt total bullshit
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @amilh @_samjack_ and
A lawsuit isn't settled law. It's quite simple
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @amilh @TheBottle8 and
You’re an idiot. There wasn’t only one lawsuit involving the interpretation of CDA involving Facebook.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I bet this boils your blood. Can’t silence the voice of reason.pic.twitter.com/sOReKeDRKf
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.