I think it should be ridiculed on both sides. Remember the Epstein story, Hillary emails, and Hunter Biden story were all censored. I think its messed up if every single social media company decides it is going to step in and try to cover for the American government. If they didnt use the word "private companies" you'd almost think they're state run.
But being a private company historically has not given you the right to discriminate. A private company can not refuse to serve someone because of that person's religion, race, or sexuality. So why on the internet should they be allowed to discriminate against a reasonable non radical political ideology? This is even worse when you realize they are even censoring things that are provably true, like the Hunter Biden story.
Legally social media companies get immunity by being classified as a public forum. Yet they're acting like publishers if they're gonna censor political speech on one side. Section 230 of us code actually states they should lose their immunity as a public forum because they arent deleting things "in good faith" (meant to be for porn and gore postings). Hopefully one day the supreme court rules on this clarifying it and it comes to an end. Public forums have to abide by the 1st amendment in the USA and they're classified as a public forum.
censorship
← View full post
I think it should be ridiculed on both sides. Remember the Epstein story, Hillary emails, and Hunter Biden story were all censored. I think its messed up if every single social media company decides it is going to step in and try to cover for the American government. If they didnt use the word "private companies" you'd almost think they're state run.
But being a private company historically has not given you the right to discriminate. A private company can not refuse to serve someone because of that person's religion, race, or sexuality. So why on the internet should they be allowed to discriminate against a reasonable non radical political ideology? This is even worse when you realize they are even censoring things that are provably true, like the Hunter Biden story.
Legally social media companies get immunity by being classified as a public forum. Yet they're acting like publishers if they're gonna censor political speech on one side. Section 230 of us code actually states they should lose their immunity as a public forum because they arent deleting things "in good faith" (meant to be for porn and gore postings). Hopefully one day the supreme court rules on this clarifying it and it comes to an end. Public forums have to abide by the 1st amendment in the USA and they're classified as a public forum.