Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
I know all of that. The issue is that the GOP wants to use these private platforms to propagate dangerous conspiracy theories (about stolen elections, COVID, "replacement theory,", etc.) because these lies rile up their impressionable base. The problem is that the riled up MAGA base often turns to violence (Jan. 6, mass murders, etc.) and these private platforms want no part of it (and it does not comply with their terms of service). |
Replacement theory is popular on the left too, sir. And the leftys are out there also killing folks, as we just saw in North Dakota. And you can't tell me that Dem's don't have their nutty fringe posting on social media too. It's just that some of them might be a little to busy to post quite as much since many of them are House or Senate members, or running campaigns like election-denier Stacy Abrams. ...or even the Prez....but I digress. Hell, Facebook allows Hamas to post.
Whether these platforms want no part of certain types of speech is central to the issue of their 230 protections. Once they make themselves publishers, they can be sued for everything and anything that is posted, provided such a party can show "harm" was caused by the post.
If they don't want the 230 protections, fine. I suspect tort lawyers would go on the attack and that would be the end of social media. Personally, that's fine by me. Social media in my opinion caused more harm than good. Haven't used Facebook in years and don't even have a Twitter, Snapchat or Tick Toc account.