Would you rather government dictate to a private business how it should choose to run its website?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @IsaacKipust
there are many things facebook isn't legally allowed to do. why would we draw the line at monopolizing the public square, and deleting free speech?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @micsolana
I obviously don’t want Facebook to delete free speech. But Facebook is a private company and it would be unfair for the federal gov to force it to respect free speech when other businesses don’t have the same obligation.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @IsaacKipust @micsolana
It could be argued that, via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Facebook gained the benefits of editorial control with no corresponding liabilities for not exercising it. Free speech strings could be attached to that benefit. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co ….
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @matthewmarkus @micsolana
I'm not a lawyer and quickly googled it but it seems like that law prevents facebook from being liable for the speech of its users because doing so would be onerous, but it doesn't preclude them from actively editorizialing users speech?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IsaacKipust @micsolana
Yes, but, as a private company, they're gaining a benefit from the government. That benefit allows them to selectively censor. Let's rollback Section 230 protections, and then I have no problem with the actions they take on their platform.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
right, this isn’t an argument that fb is in violation of the law. it’s an argument for removing unfair protections from the law that fb currently receives.
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.