[curlyQueue]

I have, and it becomes a first amendment issue when you build the case, like I did, and like everyone who’s tracking this. I hope you can acknowledge that. And surprisingly, it didn’t take me that long to put that together, maybe 3 min lol.

And let me add, this issue is certainly from a more direct angle than the one all these companies have taken: silencing a group of people even though you’re unable to directly link “incite violence “ to all events, all people, and all platforms unilaterally.

Cheers to the future removal of 230! That’s coming, no matter what’s next (AFAIK, both sides are for that) Unless of course... a back deal has somehow been made which we don’t know about.

[alphabettsy]

I’m completely missing the government suppression of speech. Can you point it out?

Section 230 repeal fixed things how?

[curlyQueue]

Sorry I thought I did via examples? My bad, let me say it directly:

It’s the people who work for the “government,” working directly with corporations to suppress speech.

230 won’t protect corporations from libel suits filed against them. On top of the massive suit coming from John Matze, many more will follow.

Happy Sunday