- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
Toss me all the garbage cans if I misread the situation, but isn't the whole point of Trump repealing section 230 is that the digital platforms wanted to have their cake and eat it too? There's being a platform, which should logically provide immunity because a platform is not responsible for the content therein; and being a publisher, which does the whole "Muh private company I can censor what I want"? Maybe Trump thinks repealing section 230 will force the digital media platforms (FB, Google, etc) to pick one and not pick both (even if that's not what ends up happening in actual practice) - you cannot BOTH censor AND claim immunity? Wouldn't this mean that if Null declared KF a platform (rather than a publisher), immunity still exists? I'm confused.
Hopefully drumpf would have the presence of mind to replace section 230 with clarifying legislation that would cement the whole "platform = immunity, publisher = muh private company and you can't be both" issue...
Hopefully drumpf would have the presence of mind to replace section 230 with clarifying legislation that would cement the whole "platform = immunity, publisher = muh private company and you can't be both" issue...
Last edited: