ISPs have always promised an unfiltered, unedited service

Social media providers have always promised the opposite: curation and moderation

Guess which one Brendan Carr wants to regulate in the name of 'neutrality'

KeithJenson Shadow Droid NewStyle303 JosephRDementia Sergio Vengeance 🇺🇲🎮🤘 SlightStrider Viva Frei Matt Orfalea John Stossel Obviously. But in inviting people to come and interact on it, it legally is similar to my inviting people to my 22-acre land, having them sign terms of service to be there, and letting them talk about stuff until I see them break terms of service, and then I send them away.

This thread perfectly explains Section 230 and social media content moderation.

Poor people are not “outside” our communities. They are brothers and sisters whose suffering we share, in order to alleviate their difficulties and marginalization, so that their lost dignity might be restored, and to ensure their necessary social inclusion. #EndPoverty

Hey. 2020 election deniers.

I've been fed up since even before 2020, but now... I just don't care any longer.

You are liars. You are traitors.

Even if you had evidence of fraud (you don't), sitting on it for this long would STILL make you an enemy of democracy and freedom.

KeithJenson Shadow Droid JosephRDementia SlightStrider Viva Frei Matt Orfalea John Stossel Simping for the First Amendment, and I know how capitalism works. Censorship is acceptable on private property. You want to go after Section 230 because of censorship? You can forget all about suspensions or strikes because they'll just be insta bans, and A LOT more often.

I’ve seen a number of trad Catholic Twitter users with profiles filled with pro-Russian propaganda (mixed in with retweets of Bishop Strickland and attacks on the Holy Father) - this is a really disturbing

‘Ultimately we will all answer individually to God for our actions.’

It’s nice of Bishop J. Strickland to remind everyone of that…and to remember that this also includes *single-issue* clerics.

Lormif SFP Annateresa: Mrs. Doubtmoon NewStyle303 Shadow Droid Dan Tom Sergio Vengeance 🇺🇲🎮🤘 Section 230 Tim Pool But at no point does he suggest, or even come close to suggesting, that content moderation on grounds protected purely by the First Amendment would *return* publisher liability to interactive computer services. That is reading context into his statement which is not present.

SFP Kathryn Tewson Annateresa: Mrs. Doubtmoon NewStyle303 Shadow Droid Dan Tom Sergio Vengeance 🇺🇲🎮🤘 Section 230 Tim Pool Again, according to SCOTUS they are the same thing. If you exclude someone for exercising their 1A rights in a specific way it is called an unconstitutional condition. mtsu.edu/first-amendmen…

SFP Lormif Annateresa: Mrs. Doubtmoon NewStyle303 Shadow Droid Dan Tom Sergio Vengeance 🇺🇲🎮🤘 Section 230 Tim Pool Nope. Absolutely not. That would be imposing a penalty for the choice to exercise editorial control — which, as you have already conceded, the statute does not do.

SFP NewStyle303 Dan Tom Sergio Vengeance 🇺🇲🎮🤘 Shadow Droid Section 230 Tim Pool You are usinjg 'cannot be used to block everything' to mean 'cannot be used to block this specific thing I dont want you to block but the very same person says it protects'

SFP NewStyle303 Dan Tom Sergio Vengeance 🇺🇲🎮🤘 Shadow Droid Section 230 Tim Pool They do not. You are misconstruing that. There are things otherwise objectionable does not protect, when you are blocking things for ulterior motives, such as if you are being anticompetitive, but sure lets let them speak.

SFP Tom Lormif Sergio Vengeance 🇺🇲🎮🤘 Shadow Droid Section 230 Tim Pool 230 doesn't have anything to do with having an ideological viewpoint, it has to do with who the original creator of specific content is.

So, your entire premise is flawed.

SFP NewStyle303 Tom Sergio Vengeance 🇺🇲🎮🤘 Shadow Droid Section 230 Tim Pool To put it into context, without 230 if Christianforums.com took down porn they could be liable for everything else on the site, not because it is 1st party speech, but just because they would be a publisher.

Deplorable “MAGA Extremist” Ted M.I.A. Also a lack of 230 protections would INCREASE the stuff you have a problem with, not decrease it; if these platforms could be held liable for their users, Alex Jones, Milo Y etc would have been banned MUCH faster.

Enoch Travis Allred Bus Mr Producer Lisa Boothe 🇺🇸 Twitter Elon Musk Twitter says they were not coerced by Biden.
-Berenson v. Twitter
-Huber v. Joe Biden

Facebook says they were not coerced by Biden.
- Children's Health Defense v. Facebook
- Rogalinski v. Meta

YouTube says they were not coerced by Biden
- ICAN v. YouTube
- Doe v. Google

Seamus Guinness We'reallmadhere Alex 🇸🇴🇾🇪 101abn steve hilton Harmeet K. Dhillon Worried about the future of free speech online and responding directly to Stratton Oakmont, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act that would end up becoming Section 230.
eff.org/issues/cda230/…

What must their Graces Cordileone, Aquila, Naumann, Paprocki, Strickland, Sample, Daly, Chaput et al. think about their 'brother' Bishop McElroy of San Diego getting the red hat, while they're stuck with purple?! 21 new cardinals, including key allies cruxnow.com/vatican/2022/0…