Trump files class action lawsuit against Big Tech!

[bambino]

https://t.me/CandlesInTheNight/13611

[rexdutchman]

Good , he's not going to "win" just bring to light there questionable elitist politico means

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by bambino

https://t.me/CandlesInTheNight/13611

[VitaMan]

But Donald talks a lot

[reddog1951]

I'm not a lawyer, but I've been researching a bit. Seems to me that the whole censorship thing revolves around 1st amendment rights. With a few exceptions (obscenity, libel, etc.) it looks to me like private publishers can choose to publish, or not, whatever they wish. Newspapers not generally required to publish opposing Op Ed's, etc. Also seems that digital/internet essentially treated the same as print. It seems that the 1st amendment only protects from government censorship.

If someone can point to something otherwise, I'd like to review before I reach a conclusion.

[oeb11]

Why would i do so - to be ridiculed?

[reddog1951]

You'd only be ridiculed if incorrect.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

But Donald talks a lot

So do you.

[reddog1951]

Good response Bambino. Any good response to my request above?

[Strokey_McDingDong]

First off, social media is absolutely nothing like a news paper. So, just drop that analogy, because it doesn't make any sense to make.

Of course it would be impractical for a news paper to publish all stories submitted to it without discrimination. What we're really asking is whether a social media platform should allow its users to publish their own content without unreasonable discrimination and censorship. So, let's stick to that argument, which has nothing to do with news papers.

The One Who Enjoys is making the case that section 230 no longer makes social media platforms function as private businesses.

[oeb11]

I think rd is 'baiting' - as he professes to enjoy doing in his own posts.

[reddog1951]

Strokey, I'm not baiting here. I think it's an interesting twist of modern times. Social media, digital media, etc. Predated the constitution. But as always, be careful what you wish for. If lib media HAS to "publish" conservative content, then the converse would likely apply.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

Social media is not liberal media, and actual news outlets are not equivalent to social media platforms. You're connecting the wrong dots. Social media is something that is unique. No one is talking about suing news networks.

I don't really like making analogies, because they often don't make sense, but if I were to make one here, I would say that social media discrimination and censorship is more like a television service provider who censors or bans certain channels because the provider doesn't like what those channels are saying.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

Social media is not liberal media, and actual news outlets are not equivalent to social media platforms. You're connecting the wrong dots. Social media is something that is unique. No one is talking about suing news networks.

I don't really like making analogies, because they often don't make sense, but if I were to make one here, I would say that social media discrimination and censorship is more like a television service provider who censors or bans certain channels because the provider doesn't like what those channels are saying.

you'd be talking about advertisements. they do that sort of discrimination. there are good advertisement, bad advertisement and inappropriate advertisement.

[rexdutchman]

Just conditioning for when the feds censor all free speech