Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Krystal and Saagar: The WORST Moments From The Big Tech Congressional Hearing" video.

So ironic, that right wingers are all into having the government tell private companies what they can and can't do on their private property.
4
@twoshedsjohnson8540 No. It's actually the removal of a government protection that would make them partly responsible for information being spread on their platforms. If I owned a newspaper and magazine shop, and some magazine snuck child porn into the pages, then I wouldn't be protected from helping spread child porn, especially if I've been notified of the situation and keep allowing it. That's different from right wingers, who are pissed because they're not spreading information that they want them to spread, and want to somehow make them spread the information they want them to spread. If I owned a newspaper and magazine shop, but didn't want to stock tabloids, that's up to me. It's not "censorship", if I choose not to. But, that's exactly what Republicans, like Cruz, are pretending it is. Facebook's algorithm was just found to be leaning right wing, and Zuckerberg donates more to Republicans, btw.
1
@twoshedsjohnson8540 Once again, removing your protection from defamation lawsuits, or whatnot, isn't censorship. Plotting to commit an act of terrorism is already illegal. If there's a regulation protecting me from being considered an accomplice, I could let people plot terrorism in my garage without a care. Removing that protection, leaving me unprotected, and having to care who uses my garage, isn't censorship. Again, it's already illegal. It's just a matter of whether I can be considered complicit, or not. Getting pissed because I'm not letting someone use my garage, that you want me to, and trying to find a way to force me to, is a whole other ballgame.
1
@Farvadude Pretty bad analogy, dumb dumb. That's pretty much the whole point specifically about "public accommodations", which a website isn't. If you allow it, then all the food places, lodgings, gas stations, in an area could put up "no gays allowed" or "no blacks allowed" signs, then people could be left stranded, hungry, with no place to stay, and depending on where they were, no, there may not be another one for dozens and dozens of miles.
1
@Farvadude Rofl, if you think I failed to take apart your, can't they just go elsewhere, basis, then you have reading comprehension problems. Some places are designated "public accomodations" for that exact reason. If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, then just don't register your business as open to the public. Register as a private club, like Costco, or gyms, only with a religious requirement, or outright register as a religious organization. Nobody is forcing them to register as what's considered a "public accommodation". Online platforms are clubs, with registration, and agreements to terms of service. They aren't "public accomodations".
1