Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Why Republicans Hate Section 230" video.

  1.  boris boris  Well, the "public accomodation" category was created to protect people from not being able to find food, shelter, and other necessities. If you think Twitter is a necessity, then you likely have an addiction problem. If not, then it's not samesies.
    5
  2. Why "can't" they perform as editors? Couldn't a golf club remove Trump's club membership, if he walked into the women's change room one too many times, if they felt like it?
    2
  3.  @mayorofmotown  A bookstore (which has to do with previous laws 230 was based on) can still pick and choose which books it wants to sell, and which it doesn't, without being considered an editor. It can selectively not sell porn, but sell nude photography books, and decide exactly what content crosses the line for them. Deciding not to host someone's content, doesn't make you an editor, or publisher.
    2
  4. You have some serious comprehension problems. There's no such thing as free speech on someone else's private property. Never has been. A private property owners right to have you removed from their private property has always trumped the non right to be on their private property saying shit in the first place. If you want free speech on social media platforms, then make a public ownership argument. Blathering about the constitution has zero to do with private companies.
    2
  5.  @mayorofmotown  Explaining the reality of private property isn't a defense, dumb dumb. If you want free speech on social media, then argue for public ownership. Arguing for public ownership is the destruction of private ownership, not a defense.
    1
  6.  @ericpiccard9602  No, the other guy said it was being argued in courts. I said 230 was based on previous laws ... and Supreme Court rulings based on those laws. You seem to have mixed up who you're replying to.
    1
  7. Rofl, they could still sensor whatever they want, with or without 230. They'd choose to sensor even more, if they were liable, not less.
    1
  8.  @0redbishop0  To make sure they don't get sued, they'll cut everyone off saying x, y, and z, rather than not cut off the original person saying x.
    1