|
|
|
|
|
|
by juniper_strong
2069 days ago
|
|
|
>> But they then have to choose... Yes, that's correct. They have to choose what content to allow. That's called being a publisher. >> Telephones are not public communication I'm guessing that you are too young to have heard of party lines. But yes, telephones were public communication. Wishing the president would die of COVID would obviously be allowed under a platform scenario, what law do you think it breaks where a content provider wouldn't publish a wish that the president of the US dies of a disease? Also, I don't think you know what the term agitprop means. |
|
|
If you're really advocating forcing individuals and small communities to choose between filtering spam and risking lawsuits, we'll have to agree to disagree. Hopefully the chilling effects that would have on speech are self-evident.
> I'm guessing that you are too young to have heard of party lines.
> But yes, telephones were public communication.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what party lines are… no they weren't. How would I listen to a conversation happening between two people outside of my local loop?
> Wishing the president would die of COVID would obviously be allowed under a platform scenario, what law do you think it breaks where a content provider wouldn't publish a wish that the president of the US dies of a disease?
This wasn't a hypothetical; it happened last week. Twitter announced it would suspend the accounts of people wishing the president would die, and the people who would go on to cry foul about the NY Post article were curiously quiet.
> Also, I don't think you know what the term agitprop means.
Yes I do.