Wrong. This is the entire issue with 230. There's zero enforcement mechanism to distinguish a publisher from a public forum provider, and Twitter and just about every other site on the internet is immune from lawsuits no matter what they do.
so youre saying after what happened today, these kind of people will just take getting murdered in the streets by BLM and Antifa?
Also Twitter likely has a bias and pushes up specific tweets to make it seems like Trump is some universal hate figure to Twitter users.
There is no proof she was armed with IEDs you lying mong. She didn't deserve to die unlike your career criminal hopped up on fentanyl planning to rob and punch another pregnant woman Saint George.
By the time it's sorted in the courts he'll be out of office and banned. No point.
The fact that the right-wing is on the left side and the left-wing is on the right is annoying me.
I don't give a fuck about Trump but you're retarded if you don't think the shadow cabal exists. There are always people behind the scenes offering bribes or threatening people in various ways to get what they want. You cannot tell me that every politician just happens to agree on how great Israel is over everyone else purely because they just believe it.
More torn apart internally is unreliable. Will the US stick to its international commitments, or will it wildly veer from side to side every four years? Does the US have policy that my country should go along with, or is it worthless to take that seriously? Should I obey American sanctions fully if they're going to change in a few years, and is the US serious about its commitments overseas? Will it put into place regulatory systems bad for my company, or will it simply repeal regulations I dislike? That kindof thing.
Yes and no. Maybe as a spectacle, yes, but there's no real laws on the book that force you to host the president's tweets or messages or statements more broadly. You might say that twitter feels like it -should- be forced to host his tweets, but lacking regulation or caselaw, there's nothing to force them to. NYT doesn't have to run anything he wants to say, for example, and if his account posted something against the ToS, it could be removed despite his standing.
Or read that book itself. I find that like 90% of people saying "Orwellian" have never read 1984 or Animal Farm or any of his other writings.
What a freakin high soy girly boy.
And it won't stop until a massive crackdown is enforced. There are so many protesters who saw that it could be done today, that they'll try it again tomorrow, and the next day, etc.
Can you explain to me why this difference even matters to online platforms in the first place? Also IMO the idea that publishers should be held accountable for "defamation" that someone else writes is just retarded as a whole.
It looks good if you have the media and an entire political party running interference for you for months on end. Something the boomerwaffen doesn't.
Laughing isn't the only thing they can do, they clearly knocked that guy out. Why go anywhere near a nigger within sucker punching distance?
Well, he can always make a Parler or Gab account.
