Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "The Supreme Court to hear Challenge to Section 230 Protections." video.

@shmosel_ Actually it's easy enough for facebook to stay in line with 230; the only thing they should censor is for things that inherently illegal, not just disagreeable.
4
@shmosel_ Again, what they need to be able to do is publish their guidelines and they must follow their own guidelines. If not, they should lose 230 protection. Seems pretty simple, right?
3
@Lolspeak_brez None of those cites you provided were from the USSC, so there is no precedent to follow in this case. Nate is talking about this specific case and how Justice Thomas has opened the door to strip social media platforms of 230 protection if they act like a publisher.
3
@SlimThrull The ruling is much more likely to be something like: 1) If you moderate based on viewpoint, then you lose 230 protection 2) If you moderate based on adult/children friendly that will be okay 3) Moderation rules will have to be specific and readily available for anyone to review. If you don't follow your own rules, then you lose 230 protection.
2
@defendingthestrawman7103 Who would actually go on social media sites? They're specifically design for the LH side of the bell curve, they are already a pit. And I question the sanity of people who feel their lives are important enough to share with the world.
1
@defendingthestrawman7103 I said the opposite. If someone wants to set up a MAGA group, that should be fine. But you couldn't set up a BLM group, but disallow a MAGA group.
1
@defendingthestrawman7103 So then they'll die off. It would be a good thing.
1
@chcheese8108 So we have a clash of law and precedent. Sounds like a lawsuit.
1