Comments by "Sasha S" (@sashas3362) on "VICE News" channel.

That seems like a long time for a science class to study fecal transplants (or any specific [as opposed to general] topic).
2
This doesn't take into account pleomorphic germ theory which says microbes can undergo radical transformations in form and function to adapt to extreme changes in their environment. Dietary changes can cause such changes.
2
It isn't only chemicals that are the problem. It is also highly radioactive.
1
@luxushauseragency I suspect it will be those which build critical infrastructures upon computers who will be the ones set back to the stone age because the security of the computers on which blockchains are built is weak. DNS over HTTPS did not exist until recently which means all computers may have been compromised long ago. We should presume all computers are compromised now even if DoH is installed.
1
@Donninator1 Who are you talking to?
1
I am offended by how Rachel Dolezal compares her racism to being transgendered. Transracialism would be considered a mental illness by mental health professionals whereas transgenderism is considered to be due to a natural variation in humans with biological basis (genetic and hormonal variations). Rachel Dolezal says race doesn't exist and has no biological basis, that there is no white blood or black blood. That is NOT true. There IS a biological basis for race. There are genetic tests which can determine racial ancestry. There are also race specific bloodtypes (such as the newly discovered J blood type). If race doesn't exist as she insists, she shouldn't be identifying as ANY race! She is a delusional racist who needs to seek the help of a mental health professional.
1
I don't get how reforming s230 would make platforms responsible for content posted by users instead of the users themselves. Platforms SHOULD lose s230 protection if they act as publishers. Only if platforms remain neutral should they be protected by s230. But if they begin to censor content or act as a publisher of content in any way such as through editing or censorship then they should NOT be protected by s230. Why is this so hard for people to understand that they think reforming s230 means taking away the protection of s230 from everyone instead of only those platforms which censor and edit? Here you got somebody from internet archive claiming they may be forced to censor content stored in their archive because they could be held liable as a publisher since they selectively curate content. But internet archive could simply become part of the new internet (web 3.0) which uses technologies such as IPFS to prevent censorship or other loss of content on the web. The only difference is you wouldn't be directing your browser to internet archive's or wayback machine's website to find the archived data. Instead you'd essentially direct your search engine to the original website (URL) where the content was originally located (except the "https://" would be replaced with "ipfs://", for example). This may soon become the standard and would make the internet archive project and it's "wayback machine" obsolete (which is great since the internet archive is centralized and there is no way to know whether the websites it curates haven't been altered in any way). Of course IPFS itself doesn't eliminate the problem of the data being altered either but at least it decentralizes the data. Alas, IPFS isn't the only technology being implemented to combat censorship or other loss of content on the web. There are similar but superior technologies (such as holonet) although they have not yet become as widely adopted as IPFS because they are still in development.
1
@Euphoniumstar Your understanding of the history of s230 is wrong IMO. Prior to s230 becoming law platforms were being held liable for content hosted by them. Section 23O cleared them of liability but only if they remained neutral as opposed to acting as an editor or publisher. An exception for "good samaritan" censorship of illegal content by the platform was allowed for though meaning the platform would not be regarded as a publisher of any content if they censored illegal content. But any other censorship would make them liable as a publisher.
1
@Euphoniumstar Do I really need to explain to you that if a platform is engaging in editing or censorship of content (outside of an honest conformance to the "good samaritan" clause of s230) that it is acting as a publisher? How can somebody who is acting as a publisher not be regarded as a publisher? They can only expect to not be regarded as a publisher if they truly aren't behaving like a publisher. Being selective of what you allow on your platform by editing or censoring content (outside of good samaritan censorship clause) undeniably makes you a publisher.
1
@Euphoniumstar EO 13925 made it clear that a host's censoring of user created content outside of the good samaritan clause makes them a publisher which can be held liable for all content hosted by them. I'm not sure what became of that EO though.
1
@Euphoniumstar s230 is an extension of telecommunications laws which require the telecommunications providers (such as ISP's) to be neutral and refrain from interfering with the delivery of communications. s230 is not the whole of the law but rather a section or subsection of a greater law and also a greater set of telco laws. Research the topic more deeply and you will find what I am saying to be true. Aside from that the fact is you need to understand the intent behind a law's creation to properly interpret it. The creation of s230 was created to make clear that platforms such as twitter should not be held liable for content hosted by them in the same way that other telcos are not held liable for the information relayed by them. Prior to the passage of s230 it was not clear whether websites such as twitter should be granted the same immunity from liability for communications relayed by them. s230 was NEVER intended to allow for hosts/platforms to censor content outside of cases allowed for by the good samaritan clause such as copyright infringement or other illegal/criminal content. In fact, the good samaritan clause was added as an afterthought if I remember correctly and not a part of the original text of the drafted law. If I remember correctly, s230 wasn't originally part of the Online Decency Act (ODA) but was grafted onto the ODA from some other drafted law or amendment to a law such as one of the telco laws. I could be wrong about that but it doesn't matter. Such detaills aside, the undisputable fact here (IMO) is: telco laws require neutrality of the communications they host. That is where the concept of "net neutrality" came from. Ever heard of "net neutrality"? You probably believe there is no law guaranteeing net neutrality too, don't you? The fact is censorship is illegal. Some people say it's only illegal when done by gov. But they don't know what they are talking about IMO. Yes, a cable TV company can be selective about what channels they carry (in total or for a given price). But that isn't the same as censoring some of the content carried by them. Understand?
1
@Euphoniumstar Seems to me they do pretend to moderate on a neutral basis. They seem to justify their censorship as allowed under the good samaritan clause (which allows for censorship of content deemed to be harmful or innacurate which is highly subjective). Aside from that case history doesn't prove anything other than courts are corrupt. One moment they decide one way and then later a different court decides the opposite. Truth is irrelevant in court. Seems whoever has the most money (or the better lawyer) wins.
1
@Euphoniumstar Not to change the subject but look what is going on with open carry of firearms now. A 9th circuit court in hawaii decided there is NO right to open carry of firearms. Previous court decisions had determined there was a right to open carry (in public) but no right to concealed carry. I won't be surprised if it is later decided that there is a right to concealed carry after all but no right to open carry (in public). Most people don't feel comfortable with somebody openly carrying a firearm in public and it poses a threat to one's safety to open carry so actually isn't the best choice if one is truly trying to defend themself with a gun (because it makes them a target of criminals who might actually be planning on using a gun in a public space). Aside from that until DC vs Heller case history (in addition to history itself) had established that the 2nd amendment did NOT guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, years of case history were ignored in the DC v Heller ruling. That is because the intent/meaning of a law can be evaluated or re-evaluated for each case in courts of statutory law. It's claimed that only in so-called common law courts does case history invariably determine how laws are interpeted forever after. So it doesn't matter if previous court decisions decided telcos can censor content outside of what the good samaritan law allows for because that decision is simply ignorant of the law (IMO). Telco laws forbid censorship beyond good samaritan exceptions. IMO even good samaritan exceptions shouldn't be allowed. Only courts should have the right to rule whether content should be censored. Prior to any court decision there should be no censorship. But how do you deal with for example somebody anonymously uploading live video of child abuse? We cannot allow such content to remain online until a court decides that it should be removed, can we? Such content must be stopped, right? Perhaps this points out the need for evolution of our legal system to allow for more rapid response. For example, allow for the public to censor content in a democratic manner. That is actually what some platforms are doing. If a sufficient number of viewers flag content as offensive then it is hidden. Ai is also being used to aid in identifying offending content although that method hasn't proven to be reliable yet as far as I know. But Ai may prove to make more accurate judgements than humans someday. Google's Ai seems to be more of a hoax IMO. It's "artificial stupidity" designed to create hatred of Ai as opposed to actual artificial INTELLIGENCE. It can't even accurately generate closed caption text using speech recognition to text converters because it doesn't take into consideration other words or context. It merely translates each word independently ignoring context. How stupid is that?
1
@Euphoniumstar Did I say s230 was intended to enforce neutrality? I certainly never meant s230 was intended to ENFORCE neutrality. I only meant that it was intended to ALLOW for neutrality. Are you going to deny that s230 was intended to allow for neutrality (without punishment) by it's authors? I have a hard time believing you'd expect you could convince anyone that s230 was never intended to allow for neutrality (when it says a host shall not be regarded as a publisher of content created by 3rd party users of it's services). As I explained, it is the whole of the telco laws which s230 is part of which require neutrality. Clearly s230 itself is not where the requirement for neutrality comes from since it allows for so-called good samaritan censorship. The good samaritan clause does not say that content must be illegal to be subject to censorship allowed by the good samaritan clause does it? But it seems obvious to me that the good samaritan clause was only ever intended to allow for censorship of illegal content. Otherwise it would be a violation of the 1st amendment right to free speech. The fact that the good samaritan clause was intended only for illegal content should be clear because it was drawn from earlier similar laws which allowed telcos to censor illegal content. But such illegal content includes profanity and obscenity. You see, profanity and obscenity are illegal under federal law and are not considered protected by the 1st amendment right to free speech. This is why you have FCC laws which prohibit verbal profanity on the airwaves. That is thanks to court decisions wherein it was decided obscenity is illegal. But it seems obvious to me that such court decisions are a clear violation of the 1st amendment right to free speech. After all, isn't the right to free speech also a right to offend? Yet, courts decided that it is illegal to be offensive. Hence the FCC laws prohibiting profanity. Yes, you do hear and see profanity on TV and radio productions deliberarely planned by the creators at times but that is because exceptions are allowed to an extent within certain limits (at least these days). Cable TV companies were only able to get away with hosting profane and obscene content because it wasn't broadcast (unencrypted) over the airwaves so wasn't subject to those FCC rules. Aside from that, cable TV was bound by the aforementioned neutral delivery laws which telcos must conform to. Are you a minor? I should ask before I continue saying what I want to say here (otherwise I risk getting into possible trouble).
1
@Euphoniumstar Oh please. As if the authors of the 2nd amendnent didn't leave behind enough commentary and insights into what their intention was for us to determine how to interpret the 2nd amendment.
1
@Euphoniumstar I don't know where you get the idea facebook and twitter don't even pretend to be unbiased anymore. Just a day or two ago I saw some report wherein dorsey was insisting twitter is neutral in it's decisions to remove content or ban users, that it's decisions are guided by a good samaritan desire to protect it's users and others in addition to the general public. Here is an example of such recent denials of bias from zuckerberg and dorsey (although not the aforementioned report I saw the other day) : https://youtu.be/2o9l_fIRAEo
1
@Euphoniumstar Yes, I will agree with you that court interpretation of law effectively becomes equivalent to law itself until overturned. But the fact is it can be overturned by one court then another court can thereafter side with the original interpretation of said law. This happens everyday in courts across the nation unbeknownst to anyone except those involved. One person can go to prison for the same offense (in the same district) which another person gets probation for because the judges and/or juries interpret a law differently (even when both defendants have an equivalent history of offenses).
1
@Euphoniumstar I believe it's only in statutory law courts where prior interpretations can be overturned (through reinterpretation) though. I don't believe they can reinterpret the law in common law courts. Prior interpretations of a law made in a common law court invariably guide court decisions forever after (in common law courts) if I understand correctly.
1
@Euphoniumstar Oh please, give me a break. They said they believe in free speech and that they take measures to protect free speech and that their decisions to censor and ban are guided by the good samaritan principles. That's equivalent to saying they are neutral. Dorsey outright claimed twitter is a neutral or unbiased platform somewhere the other day. I'll try to find that but the video I shared here should suffice to prove they are still claiming to be neutral/unbiased.
1
@Euphoniumstar Section 230 does NOT cover non-neutrality. It doesn't say a platform/host can be biased. Although it does allow for censorship guided by good samaritan principles that is not the same as overtly allowing for censorship purely due to bias. Yes, the good samaritan censorship does allow for bias to also guide censorship decisions and one's beliefs can lead one to erroneously believe opposing viewpoints pose a threat to public safety. But if you asked the authors of s230 if the intent of the good samaritan censorship clause was to allow for biased censorship I'm sure they would deny it and insist it was only intended to protect people from genuine harm. Or do you believe there was some conspiracy between the authors and facebook, twitter, youtube, reddit, etc to censor certain groups when s230 was written? If you ask me the good samaritan clause was written without any bias intended in it's deployment because it allows for anybody with any beliefs to take advantage of it. In other words, it arms all sides with an excuse to censor. But only if they can make a convincing argument that their decision to censor was genuinely guided by good samaritan principles meaning to prevent harm and promote the general welfare of the community. You keep arguing that s230 allows for censorship but it only allows for censorship when there are good samaritan reasons for it. Aside from that I keep explaining to you that the telco laws forbid censorship for any reason except for good samaritan reasons such as in cases of illegal content or other content which is deemed harmful. Are you going to keep ignoring that point? If so I will have to ignore you because I don't have time to waste. Alas, there is one point which we haven't discussed and that is the fact that the terms of service for facebook, google, youtube, etc allow for them to ban or censor anyone who violates their terms. You agree to being censored and banned when you agree to those terms and/or use their service. So there can be no punishment for their censorship or banning unless it can be proven that it was either somehow in violation of their own terms or illegal. With Trump's EO 13925 it was declared that facebook and twitter were the new townsquare and that these platforms must be unbiased in their censorship and banning the same way police must be unbiased in deciding when to remove people for expressing themselves in the town square. Has EO 13925 been repealed or somehow neutered by the courts? If not then it is still in effect, isn't it? The telco laws which require neutrality in delivery of the data hosted by telcos certainly still requires neutrality (at least last time I checked).
1
@Euphoniumstar They (dorsey and/or zuckerberg) mentioned doxxing concerns and removing content deemed harmful as you yourself pointed out. Those are examples of content which the good samaritan clause allows censoring of. Do I really need to explain that to you? Listen, it's been fun arguing with you but I must go now because I really don't have time to continue this debate. I need to start working on avoiding becoming homeless in about a month due to the effects of the unbelievable restrictions imposed on us by gov for the past year+. I don't get paid for arguing with you here so I will need to focus my energies elsewhere otherwise I may end up homeless. Gov won't be any help to me (they are the ones causing this situation for me after all). So perhaps you will excuse me. Perhaps we will continue this conversation another time. I wish you luck. If you don't need it now I'm sure you will soon.
1
@Euphoniumstar It doesn't matter what that particular author (wyden) intended. What matters is what those who passed the act into law intended it to accomplish. You see, the law is ultimately written by congress rather than any single individual (because it is subject to revision as deemed necessary by congress or at least those in favor of it). You cite a quote from senator wyden pulled from a CNN article. I won't bother to bring up the issue of CNN's questionable reputation as a biased fake news agency. Sen wyden may have said what he was quoted as saying but he's a democrat and no doubt would like a weapon of censorship to be used against conservatives/republicans. Yet the sort of free speech he seems to believe to be protected by the 1st amendment is not necessarily actually protected by the 1st amendment and it does fall under the sort of offensive and harmful content which the good samaritan law allows censorship of. Back to the original topic: if you want to find the telco neutrality laws I'm referring to then simply look for articles which explain how s230 relates to the net neutrality laws which themselves are an extension of the anti-discrimination laws of earlier telco laws. You'll find all the relevant laws in the following biased articles: https://blakereid.org/section-230-as-telecom-law/ https://blakereid.org/section-230-of-what/ Those articles seem to lean in favor of an interpretation which regards s230 as exempt from the "anti-discrimination" laws which require telcos to be neutral. But such a conclusion is either part of an attempt to mislead or a result of confusion due to the shell game played by moving s230 around into different laws and such. It fails to clearly explain s230's position within the law but it seems clear to me. As the article clearly explains, s230 is part of the original Communications Act of 1934 which is where you will find the precursor to the net neutrality laws in the form of a requirement for telcos to be neutral in their delivery of communications hosted by them. You may need to research the net neutrality laws to see why I say that because the above cited articles do not reveal all the facts about net neutrality IMO. Unfortunately I don't have time to write an article on the topic myself for you here at this time. Otherwise I may end up homeless if I waste any more time on this conversation. Maybe another day I can write that article. You will simply need to do your own research from here. I will end this by saying if people don't like censorship there are censorship resistant alternatives out there. We don't need gov to protect people from online censorship. People need to start protecting themselves. Good luck.
1
@Euphoniumstar What I meant about wyden's intent when writing (the amendment to) s230 not mattering is that what really matters is the interpretation of congress because it is congress which ultimately created it not merely wyden. There are many bills which started out as one thing but ended up something different. So the intent of the author is irrelevant. What matters is what congress intended. Actually what ultimately matters is what the gov in general (FCC, courts, etc) believe it's intended meaning is. I shared those links despite the fact that at least one leans in favor of the belief that s230 doesn't require neutrality because it does give both sides of the argument along with enough of the facts to help you find the truth if you look into it yourself. They also make it clear that s230 is part of the telco laws I mentioned. I didn't have time to look for better articles. My understanding is that the telco laws do require those hosting the communications to exercise neutrality otherwise they become a publisher and therefore can be regarded as a publisher and creator of content hosted by them which can be held liable. Yes, when trump's pick for FCC chairman ajit pai(?) ended net neutrality that may have put an end to the interpretation of s230 and the telco laws requiring social media platforms to be neutral by avoiding censorship of legal content. Quite ironic isn't it? As I said, we don't need the gov to protect us from censorship. There are censorship resistant alternatives. But these aren't free. They run on cryptocurrency. They can be effectively free since you get paid for using them. But you must spend some of that crypto to use them too. What if the gov makes crypto illegal? I doubt the gov can make NFT's (Non-Fungible Tokens) illegal though. Those are like crypto but they are actually more like digital art. Cryptokitties for example. The only way the gov could make them illegal is if they make digital art illegal. The Chinese gov might be able to get away with making NFT's illegal (someday if they haven't already) but I doubt that will ever happen in the USA. Knock on wood. I said the covid19 lockdowns which happened in china would never happen here. But look what happened. So never say never. BTW offensive and harmful content is not regarded as protected by the 1st amendment. Obscenity is illegal and so yelling fire in a crowded theater or verbally threatening to physically harm someone. None of that is regarded as protected by the 1st amendment. Some porn is actually illegal believe it or not. But I don't know how old you are so probably shouldn't get into details about that so will end it there. TTYL perhaps.
1
@Euphoniumstar Not to change the subject but have you heard about the "fediverse"? It's a new technology which links many or all of the social media platforms so you can post or share something on one and it will appear on all the others. What is trending on one can trend on the others. You can post on one of the censorship resistant alternatives like Minds and it will appear on facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. And you can see what facebook users are posting/sharing/liking/etc too even if you aren't using those platforms (if I understand correctly). Facebook, twitter, and the others in the "bad bunch" can still censor content but the fediverse puts an end to the need to actually use the bad bunch platforms or agree to their terms of service to remain connected to them. In other words you can leave facebook and twitter etc without actually leaving them. You can still participate with the rest of the world which remains on FB, twitter, YT, etc. It's awesome. Puts an end to the problem of feeling like you have to use the bad bunch if you want to remain connected with friends, family, and much of the rest of the world. Before the fediverse leaving the bad bunch would have meant everybody becoming disconnected from each other (unless everybody were to migrate to the same alternative). Not anymore. Now everybody can choose the platform of their choice without losing contact with the rest of the world. Thought you might find that interesting.
1
@Euphoniumstar The definition of ISP and "common carier" is undeniably changing due to decentralization. The distinction between an ISP and the data carried by a website has also changed due to VPN's. Things like web 3.0 browser dapps are further blurring the distinction. So you now have "common carriers" which run on top of the internet. Common carriers running atop the services provided by other common carriers. The distinction between a website (whether it be a social media platform) and an ISP because both carry/deliver 3rd party data/information/content has become blurred. Facebook, twitter, youtube, etc are "common carriers" because they host/carry/deliver 3rd party data. Of course, facebook etc can legally censor if you are warned about that in their terms of service and you agree to it. ISP's could do the same though. But the fact is that the terms of service can be changed at any time. This poses a problem because you could lose valuable data and digital assets such as intellectual property or legal documents such as evidence if the terms are changed and data is deleted or you are banned. It isn't realistic to try to prevent terms of service from being changed in general. They have a right to change their terms. The only realistic option to protect the public from being harmed by losing valuable data due to censorship is for the gov to enforce neutrality of common carriers. People can use censorship resistant platforms and technologies but even then there is no guarantee valuable data won't be deleted or access to it lost. Having gov ban censorship by all "common carriers" including websites like facebook twitter youtube etc is a good way to protect ourselves from loss of valuable data. It adds to the protection provided by the censorship resistant options.
1
@Euphoniumstar I see your point. Very good argument. A viable solution to the problems you describe would be to allow for either an uncensored version or a filtered version which filters out content as decided by the moderators. Such a system would work like a "family filter" for kids surfing the net. But instead of the filter running on the client end it is run on the server end. So if you have a facebook group you can still moderate by manually and automatically deleting objectionable content such as spam ads porn or unrelated content for those who don't want to see it. But for those usres who want to be sure to get the uncensored version they can turn the filter off on their end. You see? Actual censorship should not be allowed. Moderation can be allowed but it should work like a filter which the user/client can turn on or off.
1
@Euphoniumstar Some content should be truly deleted though such as some illegal content. I'm sure there are people who will argue against that though. They'll say allowing for any censorship poses a threat of non-illegal content being censored which defeats the purpose of creating a censorship-free solution. I personally believe we need to prevent any problems at the source. For example, rather than regarding people sharing copyrighted data without permission as the problem maybe we need to create a society where people sharing movies, music, games and other copyrighted data is not a problem. Some of the censorship resistant platforms do that by paying the copyright holders whenever it is shared. How can the copyright holder complain about that? But that doesn't solve the problem of other illegal content such as videos of torture and such. This only highlights a problem with our society as opposed to the internet. We need to find a way to identify and reform people who are into such content before they create such content or harm others. This can be done but isn't being done. Censorship isn't the solution. Censorship doesn't stop those monsters. It merely sweeps the problem under the rug. If you want to stop that sort of smut you have to stop it at it's source. That means reforming people and perhaps reforming society in general.
1
@Euphoniumstar Common carriers are those services which share access to the same content. As I explained the distinction between services like facebook and an ISP are becoming blurred because FB hosts data posted on other platforms (via the fediverse bridge between the different platforms). Each platform has become a common carrier for content on the other platforms in the fediverse. So they are common carriers. Granted you can't see everything on the internet through facebook. So there is a difference in the content you can access on FB vs your ISP. But some ISP's do restrict access to some websites. For example many ISP's restrict access to usenet or prevent the use of Tor and they may block access to known unsafe sites or sites known to host illegal content. There is no common carrier available to the general public which provides access to all online content as far as I know. So there really is no difference between FB and an ISP if you keep that in mind.
1
@Euphoniumstar You see/hear justice clarence thomas' opinion on whether social media platforms and other online platforms are "common carriers" (or "public accomodations"), issued yesterday? Very revealing and may spell the end of censorship by big tech in online platforms open to the public. Here are some excerpts: "If part of the problem is private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then part of the solution may be found in doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude. Historically, at least two legal doctrines limited a company’s right to exclude. "First, our legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain businesses, known as common carriers, to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers. Candeub, Bargaining for Free Speech: Common Carriage, Network Neutrality, and Section 230, 22 Yale J. L. & Tech. 391, 398–403 (2020) (Candeub) see also Burdick, The Origin of the Peculiar Duties of Public Service Companies, Pt. 1, 11 Colum. L. Rev. 514 (1911). "Justifications for these regulations have varied. Some scholars have argued that common-carrier regulations are justified only when a carrier possesses substantial market power. Candeub 404. Others have said that no substantial market power is needed so long as the company holds itself out as open to the public. Ibid.; see also Ingate v. Christie, 3 Car. & K. 61, 63, 175 Eng. Rep. 463, 464 (N. P. 1850) (“[A] person [who] holds himself out to carry goods for everyone as a business . . . is a common carrier”). "And this Court long ago suggested that regulations like those placed on common carriers may be justified, even for industries not historically recognized as common carriers, when “a business, by circumstances and its nature, . . . rise[s] from private to be of public concern.” See German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, 411 (1914) (affirming state regulation of fire insurance rates). At that point, a company’s “property is but its instrument, the means of rendering the service which has become of public interest.” Id., at 408. "This latter definition of course is hardly helpful, for most things can be described as “of public interest.” But whatever may be said of other industries, there is clear historical precedent for regulating transportation and communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers. Candeub 398–405. Telegraphs, for example, because they “resemble[d] railroad companies and other common carriers,” were “bound to serve all customers alike, without discrimination.” Primrose v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 154 U. S. 1, 14 (1894). "In exchange for regulating transportation and communication industries, governments—both State and Federal—have sometimes given common carriers special government favors. Candeub 402–407. For example, governments have tied restrictions on a carrier’s ability to reject clients to “immunity from certain types of suits”3 or to regulations that make it more difficult for other companies to compete with the carrier (such as franchise licenses). Ibid. By giving these companies special privileges, governments place them into a category distinct from other companies and closer to some functions, like the postal service, that the State has traditionally undertaken. "Second, governments have limited a company’s right to exclude when that company is a public accommodation. This concept—related to common-carrier law—applies to companies that hold themselves out to the public but do not “carry” freight, passengers, or communications. See, e.g., Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 41–43 (1883) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (discussing places of public amusement). It also applies regardless of the company’s market power. See, e.g., 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. §2000a(a). "...The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms." -End Quote I believe you will find the full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
1
Where sports/athletics are concerned, we should group people based on physical characteristics and endurance ability not discriminate based on sex/gender.
1